PAUL KRUGMAN: Emerging Republican Minority

[shiva2999]

As I said, right-wingers are breeding themselves out of existence...

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/03/paul-krugman-emerging-republican.html

PAUL KRUGMAN: Emerging Republican Minority

Remember how the 2004 election was supposed to have demonstrated, once and for all, that conservatism was the future of American politics? I do: early in 2005, some colleagues in the news media urged me, in effect, to give up. “The election settled some things,” I was told.

But at this point 2004 looks like an aberration, an election won with fear-and-smear tactics that have passed their sell-by date. Republicans no longer have a perceived edge over Democrats on national security — and without that edge, they stand revealed as ideologues out of step with an increasingly liberal American public.

Right now the talk of the political chattering classes is a report from the Pew Research Center showing a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage.

Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.

But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.

For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it.

...more...

[TheCrystalBall]

I've been saying for years Americans, as a whole, lean left more than right.

[sukie]

PAUL KRUGMAN

"A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists. In his May 22, 2005 farewell column, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent conceded, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Nice

[shiva2999]

PAUL KRUGMAN

"A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists. In his May 22, 2005 farewell column, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent conceded, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Nice

LOL!

Sukie conveniently neglects to mention this is from the criticisms section of the article, plus he neglects to print the rest of the section where this is debunked.

Nice.

[sukie]

Guilt by the sheer needing debunking.

[Gilly]

u libs sure do live and die by your polls. how come every poll has Hillary losing to any GOP candidate head to head?

[shiva2999]

Guilt by the sheer needing debunking.

Huh?

[sukie]

Who did the debunking ?(for our readers)

[nehemiah]

u libs sure do live and die by your polls. how come every poll has Hillary losing to any GOP candidate head to head?:hijack:

:dunno:

[JLB]

u libs sure do live and die by your polls. how come every poll has Hillary losing to any GOP candidate head to head?

I know is it because she sucks?

[shiva2999]

Who did the debunking ?(for our readers)

It's your link. Read it.

[JLB]

:hijack:

:dunno:

hinehe

:partysmilies:

[sukie]

I saw the exchange with O'reilly... That couldn't be it. It was witty banter for a neo-Keynesian

[shiva2999]

I saw the exchange with O'reilly... That couldn't be it. It was witty banter for a neo-Keynesian

You're right. That wasn't it.

[JLB]

http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2005/08/krugman_265x308.jpg

This guy is not credible lol.
NY Times wow worse than Newsmax lol.

[notacon]

Paul Krugman is brilliant and has hit the nail squarely on the head again.

He gives the best argument against impeachment, even though Bush and Cheney are the most deserving of that distinction for any president and VP that has ever served in this country.


Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.


Bush will go down in history as the one person that started the long and successful domination of Democrats and liberals we have seen since FDR.

Of, course the overwhelming majority of Americans favor liberal ideas and policies even though they don't call themselves "liberal".

Decades of conservative demonization has seen to the avoidance of those terms but poll after poll after poll vindicates liberal ideas.

Polls also can show supposed support for some conservative ideas but when observed closely they expose the contradiction.

For example the question of "lower taxes" usually polls well but so does "universal health care". You can't have both.

Repugs have always tried to exploit that desire for lower taxes but then in the usual dishonest way that Repugs do almost everything their policies actually only lower taxes substantially for the mega-super-wealthy and leave crumbs for everyone else...in most cases their warped ideology ends up where overall taxes GO UP for the vast majority of Americans.

Maybe the sleeping giant is finally waking up to the Repug's hubris...and George W. Bush is the alarm clock.

[JLB]

Paul Krugman is brilliant and has hit the nail squarely on the head again.

Notacon is he a partisan yes or no?

[shiva2999]

Notacon is he a partisan yes or no?

Yes, he has a pro truth bias.

[JLB]

Yes, he has a pro truth bias.

thanks Shiva!

[35Pete]

Notacon is he a partisan yes or no?

Yep. Notacon's one of the biggest partisan there is. LOL ;)

[pmoon6]

HaHaHaHa. Great thread.

Paul Krugman is a pussy and couldn't zipper his own fly without help from his many admirers.

Who helped him today?

Shiva?

[shiva2999]

Paul Krugman kicks ass.

[JoeMama]

I've been saying for years Americans, as a whole, lean left more than right.

Maybe it's because I live in the Bible Belt, but I've always viewed it as the complete opposite.

I'm in Tallahassee now, which is fairly liberal. But when I visit Jacksonville on the weekends, it's nothing but Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on the road.

[JLB]

Paul Krugman *icks ass.

Wow he's a pig lol.

[notacon]

Maybe it's because I live in the Bible Belt, but I've always viewed it as the complete opposite.

I'm in Tallahassee now, which is fairly liberal. But when I visit Jacksonville on the weekends, it's nothing but Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on the road.

You are confusing party partisanship with political philosophy.

Even in the Bible Belt the favoritism toward Repugs is only marginal...especially when one considers that less than 40% of eligible voters actually register and vote.

The label of liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat elicit certain responses because of years of conditioning but when people are presented with a generic policy choice the majority choose the more liberal path.

Certainly some issues, especially in the Bible Belt, have the greater appearance of being "conservative"...for example martial fidelity.

Most would say that sticking with one spouse is a "conservative value"...but if you look at supposed "conservative" (and especially Republican) politicians many do not follow that particular principle while more Democratic (or supposedly "liberal") do.

Just take a look at the presidential hopefuls...

Rudy - two divorces - three wives
McCain - one divorce - two wives
Romney - no divorce - one wife
Gingrich - two divorces - three wives

Clinton - no divorce - one husband
Obama - no divorces - one wife
Edwards - no divorces - one wife

There has been only one president that has been divorced...Ronald Reagan of supposed high moral values.

The point is that true-blue conservatism, as a guiding principle, is in reality only shared by a small minority in this country.

What people label themselves as and what they really support are two entirely different things.

[Meathead]

the wingnut movement is dead. thank god oh lawdy thank god

now we have to rescue the republican party before we inflict upon ourselves the pain of total democratic control

sadly i dont think we are going to get there in time. so brace yosevs

[notacon]

Yep. Notacon's one of the biggest partisan there is. LOL ;)

Unfortunately, many don't understand what "partisan" even means.

I label very few here with that word...I reserve it for those that espouse one set of supposed "principles" but then throw it all out the window to support a political party or politician.

I don't do that.

Just because I agree with Paul Krugman does not make me a partisan. We share many of the same values and principles as I do with many Democrats. But, I would never support a policy that was contrary to my principles just because a Democrat or a writer like Krugman states it.

Many Repug partisans do not have the same respect for their own values and/or principles. There are many instances where this is glaringly apparent.

All during the 90's all we heard from Repugs was the importance of the "rule of law" and truthfulness when under oath.

All out the window when they scramble to support the felon Libby.

All out the window when they support the serial liar Bush.

All out the window when they support the liar Gonzales.

For decades all we have heard is how the Repugs revere national security.

All out the window when they support the outing of a CIA agent.

All out the window when they support lying to start a war.

For decades all we have heard from the Repugs is how much support "smaller government".

All out the window when they support the Bush policy of warrantless and illegal wiretaps.

All out the window when they support Bush's and Repug Congress' huge increase in the size of government.

All out the window when they support the gathering of huge amounts of information (like phone records) from every American...shades of "big brother" government snooping and control.

All we have heard for decades from Repugs is their desire for less government spending.

All out the window when they support the biggest non-military spending increases in the last 50 years brought on by Bush's and GOP Congress' corruption.

All out the window when they supported Bush's government give-away to the pharmaceutical industry masked as a "Medicare Drug Plan"

All we have heard for decades from the Repugs is the desire to practice budgetary responsibility and "balanced budgets".

All out the window to support Bush's tax-cuts for the super-mega wealthy that has contributed to the biggest deficits in our history.

All out the window to support that same increased spending to pay back campaign donors that have also contributed to those same deficits.

THAT unwavering support that is directly contradictory to stated principle because the GOP or Bush proposes or passes such policy is the epitome of partisanship. It is an infection of values where one is blind to reality and the truth.

No...I am not a partisan because I accept the truth for what it is and NOT because the Dem party says it is.

BTW...Paul Krugman IS brilliant. He is a professor at Princeton University and is widely acknowledged as having superior intelligence.

Just because one does not agree with his opinion is not reason to denigrate his obvious smarts.

[JLB]

notacon is Krugman himself a partisan yes or no?

[deconstruction]

PAUL KRUGMAN

"A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists. In his May 22, 2005 farewell column, New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent conceded, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Nice

So a biased partisan calls another partisan a biased partisan? So?

[JLB]

So a biased partisan calls another partisan a biased partisan? So?

Krugman is a biased partisan in your opinion?