The Krugman/Limbaugh Nightmare: President Obama Might Succeed

[jefferson_dem]

Hmmm...

The Krugman/Limbaugh Nightmare: President Obama Might Succeed
Frank Schaeffer

The president that Tim Geithner works for is making policy, and he didn't ask Paul Krugman or Rush Limbaugh for their permission! So Krugman and Limbaugh are building personal Obama-Will-Fail, media-based ego empires to hedge their anti-Obama bet.

Yes, I know that open discussion, a "loyal opposition" and all that play a part, and that the strength of the Democratic Party is the free exchange of ideas, as opposed to the top down ideological "purity" of the folks in the Republican Party. However the Obama critics to the left criticize some members of his team for being beholden to the "Wall Street mentality." Well, what about the ethos they are beholden to? These commentators live in a media news cycle bubble, wherein after only 8 weeks they already expect miracles, or they are academics who live in the academy bubble where it's all hot air all the time with no personal buck-stops-here accountability.

Enough is enough! Some of us -- including this life-long Republican and now independent voter -- voted for Obama, and, guess what?: we will back him! We trust Obama more than his detractors. We actually believe in him and are ready to think in years not sound bites.

The Krugman/Limbaugh legacy now depends on Obama (and America) failing in order to vindicate these (and many other) naysayers. Luckily for Krugman/Limbaugh, their "predictions" get a big hearing so they can help guarantee the outcome of their Obama Is Wrong prophecies; sort of like God. Maybe not even "sort of," because together Krugman/Limbaugh make the perfect team: the smart white lefty and the stupid white righty together at last!

The Nobel committee said; ""Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity." And Limbaugh has 20 million listeners! Nevertheless, Obama thinks he can lead America without Krugman/Limbaugh. See, Krugman/Limbaugh backed Hillary and sniped at Obama through the primary. But the American people wouldn't do what Krugman/Limbaugh told them to do and didn't back their candidate, irrespective of the fact Krugman/Limbaugh said only Hillary could win and govern.

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-krugmanlimbaugh-night_b_180440.html

[rurallib]

1. there is a huge difference between Krugman and Limpy

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't believe Krugman WANTS Obama to fail. He is giving his opinion and he fears that Obama's policies may not fix the problem.
On the other hand Limpy does want Obama to fail, mostly for political reasons.

[JayMusgrove]

3. You are right, but Krugman wants to succeed as Obama does.

Sorry Krugman has no understanding of politics

[martymar64]

29. But Krugman know Economics and has a Nobel Prize to show for it

Obama has no understanding of economics, Look who he has in his posse, Geithner and Summers and Rubin, the very jagoffs that got us in the mess we are now in.

Obama should fire those pricks and appoint Krugman as Treasury Sec, at leat then he'll get good advice.

[CTLawGuy]

54. Milton Friedman

also won a Nobel Prize for economics.

[martymar64]

116. That was a different era and besides, Friedman is dead and can't say anything anymore.

We know who Geithner and Summers are working for, and it ain't Obama. They are loyal to only Wall Street and the Banksters, not to Obama or the American people. I wish Obama would wake up and realize that.

[whistler162]

62. Child, if Obama has no understanding of economics

then to put it bluntly we are DONE DEAD FRIED.

You might as well stock up on water and dried food and kiss your ARSE goodbye.

As for Krugman becoming Sec. of the Treasury he, Krugman, wouldn't have the guts!

[avaistheone1]

69. If Obama doesn't start listening to folks presenting different viewpoints

other than the losers who brought us this crisis we are DONE DEAD FRIED.

[martymar64]

115. Whatever you say Grandma

I'm already planning on a lovely career in the black market. Some things truly are recession-proof.

[Barack_America]

5. Oh I think he does.

Most definitely.

Krugman's animosity towards Obama goes way back.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

86. I agree, too. What do you think is behind the contempt? I don't want to say what I think it is

for fear of causing a riot on this forum. But I do have my ideas. I want to hear yours, though.

[depakid]

6. Krugman's "legacy" depends on Obama "failing?" LOL.

Just goes to show that there's fairly large store of outright stupidity on the left (as if we didn't know that already).

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Reterr]

49. No kidding/eom

[jefferson_dem]

7. We'll see...

I'm not absolutely sold on the conflation of Krugman/Limbaugh but I do know that they have both staked their reputations on being right about Obama being wrong. And they both have extremely loyal legions of supporters who will go to the mat with their talking points...all the way to the end.

[martymar64]

30. If you're not sold on the conflation, then why bring it up?

I'm guessing that you just hate Krugman because he dares to criticize your hero, even with something constructive.

[LooseWilly]

48. You think?

I've gotten the impression that Krugman just seemed worried that political considerations were liable to put too much of a damper on the spending he feels is necessary to stem an impending depression.

Whether he's right or wrong... I guess we'll see.

I don't think he's staking anything in particular on his estimation that Obama's stimulus failing... I've gotten the impression that he's just convinced/desperately worried that it won't be enough. I think he'd be happy to be proven wrong. In fact... I'll bet $1000 that he'd be happy to be proven wrong... or at least that he'd be able to smile and say "I was wrong" on National TV if this first round of stimulus plan fixed everything without need for a recourse to another round of stimulus.

Of course, I don't know that anyone really thinks that such a bet is anything but irrelevant talk... like talking about what we'd do if the space aliens came to earth and suddenly shared a new pizza recipe with us...

Limbaugh, on the other hand... is just looking for chinks in the armor of popularity.. while gobbling oxycontin with the other hand... he's a hack shock jock who uses politics for shock and awe... and would probably sweat himself to death if global warming considerations forced us to give up air conditioning...

[PM Martin]

10. Krugman wants Obama to succeed

I am with Krugman and Stiglitz among others who see the current plan as being a failure.
None of us want to go back to having a right wing government.

[NJmaverick]

81. Krugman wants to be right, which means that Obama must fail

[JayMusgrove]

2. Oh how I love that Limpballls might have to admit failure

Krugmann, never!

He's too wondering why he was not made an important post ..........like Galbraith was

[Pirate Smile]

4. "Krugman/Limbaugh backed Hillary and sniped at Obama through the primary."

Krugman has to love that comparison.

[jefferson_dem]

9. That part struck me as a particularly sharp zinger.

Krugman's mistrust of / disdain for Obama is well-established. Was not Krugman an Edwards supporter though, initially?

[Pirate Smile]

11. I don't know. It only came to my attention after he was pushing Hillary and slamming Obama

constantly.

I sure remember Limp's Operation Chaos though.

Damn, that was a crazy Primary/Caucus season - one for the ages.

(and, yes, that was the sharpest zinger landed)

[NJmaverick]

77. Yes Krugman backed Edwards, until he dropped

then Hillary until she dropped and then reluctantly backed Obama

[MercutioATC]

8. Krugman, as many others (including myself) doesn't believe this plan has any chance to succeed.

The fact that Rush uses the criticism as ammunition against Obama doesn't mean that we want to see Obama or the economy fail...it simply means that we're gravely concerned about the path Obama has chosen.

[JayMusgrove]

97. Would you like to say WHY you don't think it will succeed? Like..

Krugmann wants MORE $ thrown at the problems NOW, sooner rather than later, and wants total control of banks held by the government. Is that realistic? Does that really insure more success? If so, how?

[ananda]

12. Indeed Obama m i g h t succeed..

.. as anyone might in any given alternate universe.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Stay golden with that positive attitude, eh.

Sometimes I have to check the url above to remind myself where I am...

[Pirate Smile]

14. People know the future. There are a lot of crystal balls here.

[high density]

68. Krugman's policy m i g h t succeed.

What is your point?

[girl gone mad]

15. Succeeds at what cost?

Why is it so hard for the cheerleader crowd to understand that this plan amounts to an enormous gift to the big banks and their bondholders? That's not even a debatable point.

For Geithner's plan, "success" simply means that we will have given the banks a lot of money in hopes that they might turn around and lend it back to us so that we can all create new debt bubbles.

[jefferson_dem]

17. So we have fortune tellers and phony mind readers attacking the administration's policies.

Your definition of "success" according to Geithner differs from his actual defintion of "success".

Here's a link to a transcript from his ABC interview today, if you care to have a look at how he describes the plan, including goals and method.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003087638

[girl gone mad]

28. Geithner is quite dishonest in this interview.

GEITHNER: David, the investor’s money is at risk. They can lose all their money. Now, again, you have to compare these to the alternatives. In the alternative scheme the government, in our view, would be taking on much more risk. The taxpayer will be much more exposed to losses. Life’s about choices. Life’s about alternatives. This is a better way to help get these markets working again.

Not true. Investors get to gamble with our money. To quote Barry Ritholtz:

"Start here with this simple example. It’s a coin toss. Heads you win $100; tails you get nothing. How much would you pay to play? You can play as many times as you wish. Answer: not more that $50. For less than $50, you would play as often as you can. $50 is your breakeven; only a fool would pay more.

Now add Tim Geithner as your partner. He matches what you invest but you, and only you, get to set the price to play. Answer: you put up no more than $25 as the investor and that means he matches your number. At under $25 you play as much as you can. $25 is your breakeven as the investor; $50 is still the breakeven for the coin flip.

Now let’s add some of the leverage from the FDIC.

Suppose that the FDIC will loan you $40 as a non-recourse loan. You and Geithner each put up $5 for a total of $10 and, adding in the loan money, you pay $50 to play, just as before. If you get heads, you pay off the loan of $40, and you and Geithner split the rest. That means you get $30 for your $5 and so does he. Remember, you set the price to play. If you get tails you get nothing and lose $5, Geithner loses $5, and the FDIC loses $40.

Now suppose we have an auction to decide who will play.

The highest bidder wins the right to play as many times as he wishes. With this example the breakeven price rises from $50 to $70. At $70 you put up $15; Geithner puts up $15 and the FDIC still loans $40. Half the time you will win $100 and use $40 to pay off the FDIC, leaving $60 for you to split with Geithner. You will get $30 back for each $15 you play, when you win. The other half of the time you will get zero, since it’s still a coin flip risk.

Notice that the price to play went from a $50 breakeven to a $70 breakeven. This happened while the odds remained a 50-50 coin flip.

Also notice that the leverage ratio was low when you put up $15, Geithner put up $15, and the FDIC put up $40. Under the Treasury PPIP plan the leverage ratio can go as high as 6 to 1. Using the full 6:1 leverage ratio, a coin-flip breakeven point would be about $3.57 for the investor.

Here is how I get that number. You put up $3.57; Geithner puts up $3.57; the total investor’s equity is $7.14. The FDIC loans 6 times $7.14, or $42.84. Total price to play is $49.98. Let’s call it $50, which is the amount to play each time.

There is next to no risk to the investors in the Geithner scheme. Virtually all of the risk is shouldered by the taxpayer via the FDIC.

GEITHNER: Look, we had no good choices in that context, David. These were contracts written before the government got involved, before Ed Liddy became CEO of AIG.

GEITHNER: We’re a nation of laws. We cannot get the economy going again if there’s an expectation the government’s going to come in and break contracts. Just not a tenable thing to do.

Except that the government is presently forcing GM to cancel contracts. I guess some contracts are just more valid than others.

There's plenty more where that came from, but it's probably a waste of time.

Here's Geithner admitting that Americans will have to accept a lower quality of life after the bailouts:

GREGORY: Will the economy be fundamentally different?

Will people own fewer homes? I mean, home ownership, will that go down?

Will consumption change?

Will our lives change in a meaningful way?

GEITHNER: I think people will be living within their means more, which is helpful. We want to have, you know, a stronger, more sustainable recovery, not a recovery based on a artificial boom that’s not going to be sustained.

If he defines "success" as a full economic recovery brought about when banks resume lending at previous levels, why would it be necessary for us to lower our expectations going forward?

[martymar64]

32. Geithner's tools for the economics are a headless chicken and a kazoo

God, I'm loving South Park these days. They really hit the nail on the head this time.

[girl gone mad]

36. I think that may have been the best episode ever.

:)

[On the Road]

76. Provided That Treasury Can Keep the Banks from Going under,

the cost of the plan is limited to AIG, at least a large part of it. The rest of the money will be paid back at 6% interest.

Krugman's plan could potentially cost much, much more. That's not how it's usually presented, but I am sure it's an extremely important factor.

We don't know whether the plan will succeed. There were several options, and this was one of them. It could be that all of them would have worked, or that none of them would. What is most critical in my mind is that the government was intervened early in the process in the right general direction.

[NJmaverick]

78. Are you fully aware of this plan?

it's not give aways. It's loans, it's buying up assets (that have potential value) and it's getting shares in various companies. When the economy turns around, the government could be in for a real windfall. Then again, if you get your info from Krugman you would be unaware of these facts.

[Telly Savalas]

111. If the assets lose value, the loans don't have to be paid back.

That's a give away.

If there wasn't a substantial risk of the assets losing value, folks would be buying them without non-recourse loans.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Krugman is no Limbaugh, and......

Krugman and his nationalization scheme aren't off the table......
the Obama administration, considering the $700 Billion already put out,
are trying something else.

It is President Obama's responsibility, and he knows it.

Again, Krugman has expressed himself on this numerous times.

Now, if Krugman was kind enough,
I'd like to hear him push the budget more than just a couple of times,
just to even things out....especially now that this is where the public debate is.
(heard he talked about today, but I have seen a transcript widely circulated,
so it doesn't appear to be getting much notice, unfortunately for us).

In addition, a word or two about the proposed regulatory framework would be nice....
especially since a case has to be made to the public to pressure their congressfolks
to vote for it. I haven't heard anything on that.

When one has such a high profile, it would be a shame to become a One Note Paul...
especially when so much is at stake on many different economic levels.

So that is what we shall see. If he can multitask.....or not.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Personally, I won't hold my breath waiting for Krugman's particular wisdom on President's policies.

His perspective is just one of many...thousands.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Well, if he wants to save the world, that would be helpful.....

I mean, we are talking Health Care funding, which is his other baby...or was, during the campaign!

[jefferson_dem]

21. Point taken.

Given the sway Krugman's words have over so many on our side, it would be nice to have him out there actually promoting the cause.

Remember, he was an early and often critic of Obama's healthcare plan. Hopefully, he will not prop up the perfect as the enemy of the good again.

[FrenchieCat]

22. The difference between Obama and Hillary's plan was the mandate.....

and no mandate means those who offer health insurance would have to compete for those who choose to opt out, which means lower prices for everyone.

When everyone is forced in, than competition becomes of a different tune, IMO.

[paulk]

71. prefering one candidate's healthcare plan over anothers'

during the primary season is not propping up "the perfect as the enemy of the good".

He prefered all three plans (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) to any plan the Republicans had.

And the Republicans are the enemy, remember.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. Hey, FC. What I don't understand is this: If Obama fails, his entire presidency fails.

The detractors make it seem like there's some corruption going on behind the scenes where Geithner, Summers and Obama are plotting to give the banks taxpayer at the expense of the taxpayers. Let's just say that it's true and that the plan furthers the insolvency of the banks. I find it hard to believe that that Obama et al. are deliberately trying to bankrupt this country for nefarious reasons. That would be BUSH, not Obama! Don't they understand that to do so would end their careers?

My guess is that the Obama/Geithner plan is one that they truly believe will work. While there's nothing wrong with speculation and Krugman criticizing the plan; nothing like this has ever been attempted before. Why can't we give the plan a chance to see if it works?

This is my personal opinion but I think there's something else going on behind the Krugman criticisms, part of it you are probably already thinking the same thing.

[BlooInBloo]

20. It certainly looks somewhat like Krugman doesn't want Obama's plan to succeed...

I can't read his mind, of course.

[paulk]

23. conflate Limbaugh and Krugman

just the usual tactics from the Obama goon squad

character assassination

it's despicable

and, in the long run, damaging to Obama

[chill_wind]

24. Oh dig it.

Doctor Obama (How America Can Commit National Suicide)

67 Comments | Posted March 26, 2009 | 03:02 PM (EST)

The Lefty Doom Brigade: Rich, Krugman, Dowd -- Please Shut Up!

152 Comments | Posted March 23, 2009 | 05:51 PM (EST)

By getting their panties all bunched up in a demeaning imitation of the impatient cable news-cycle idiots -- reaction to reaction, never long term thinking -- Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd are now part of the self-fulfilling Doom Brigade that our thoughtful, calm, smart president is battling.

Obama, Laura Ingraham, the Special Olympics, AIG, the Republicans and Jesus

126 Comments | Posted March 18, 2009 | 10:10 AM (EST)

So now the Republicans decide the AIG bonuses are bad? So now FOX News' only takeaway from President Obama (on Leno) is an off the cuff remark about the Special Olympics? The no compassion, greed-is-good ethos that the Republicans labored so hard to nurture is forgotten when it suits them....

I've Just Seen the Next Judi Dench and She's African-American

16 Comments | Posted March 17, 2009 | 04:44 PM (EST)

I voted for President Obama but I'm still a white fifty-six-year-old writer who might not be expected to "do" empathy with African-American folk gods. So why was I so fully invested in -- and enjoying every minute of -- the New York premiere of Trickster at the Gate?


Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (From a Former Republican)

1362 Comments | Posted March 8, 2009 | 04:09 PM (EST)

Dear Republican Leaders: The Republican Party has become the party dedicated to sabotaging the American future. Check out the sermon I just delivered about the Republican Party on CNN when being interviewed by D.L. Hughley -- and/or read on.


An Open Letter to America - Everything Will Be Okay (Really!)

7 Comments | Posted March 3, 2009 | 01:08 PM (EST)

Dear America: We are about to enter the most vibrant period of American history. No, this is not the Apocalypse! The stock market is down, our houses are worth somewhat less than they were last year, some of us have lost our jobs, our retirement funds have lost value but...


Amusing Ourselves to Death -- How to Waste Our Last (Obama) Chance

3 Comments | Posted February 5, 2009 | 06:32 AM (EST)

Who gives a flying crap about capping what executives earn who get part of the bail out? What does it matter if Tom Daschle's nomination for President Obama's Cabinet was withdrawn? Who gives a shit about Rush Limbaugh's opinions? Is the biggest issue confronting us the issue of "vetting" appointees?...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/#blogger_bio

[jefferson_dem]

25. "Goon squad"?

:rofl:

paulk, your posts have always demonstrated genuine concern for what is damaging to Obama. Uh huh...

EDIT: Post #7 in this thread speaks to the "conflation" issue.

[paulk]

31. yeah, a willingness to throw anybody and everybody

under the bus. A willingness to smear, cast aspersions on, denigrate the intelligence of, mischaracterize, and whatever other nasty, shitty thing can be thought of to damage the reputation of anyone deemed an opponent of Barrack Obama.

KRUGMAN AND OBAMA ARE ON THE SAME SIDE

and you can take your snark as to my motives and shove them up your ass

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Most despicable post ever. Another Capitol Hill dropout? They've shut..

down their hate site, and have popped up here again. :puke:

[spoony]

50. Most hyperbolic post ever.

What part of that post was so atrocious and offensive that it would warrant your label? The idea that Obama and Krugman are on the same side? The idea that there are some people who go to ridiculous lengths to demonise anyone remotely critical of anything Obama does? The former is evident by what Krugman has said, and the latter by what has been said about him.

[jefferson_dem]

56. Indeed.

This poster was one of the most aggressive Obama-haters during the primaries and after. Now it pretends to be looking out for the President's better interests, while casting wild harsh aspersions in a scattershot fashion.

Zero credibility.

[paulk]

64. that is absolute bullshit

I criticized Obama, yes, but I never engaged in the sort of hate people like you, for instance, did toward the candidate I supported.

You, also, validate my post concerning the "goon squad" behavior of a certain segment of Obama's supporters. If there was hatred to be found in my posts, it was directed at the small minded, fatuous arguments made by the sort of posters who could only defend Obama (or themselves) by denigrating their "opponents", through petty name calling and vilification, or through such childish tactics as calling another human being "it".

Perhaps now you could explain to me how conflating Rush Limbaugh and Paul Krugman is acting in the President's best interest?

[jefferson_dem]

72. Forgive me, but your initial post in this thread refers to the "goon squad" of Obama supporters...

And now you claim to be a high minded reasoned critic?

No big deal. Whatever gets you through the day. Have a good one.

[paulk]

73. I not only refered to it...

I made the case, IMO.

You helped.

Thanks, and

you have a nice day, too

[paulk]

60. shallow

but thanks for validating my post

btw - I got banned from Capitol Hill long ago - for defending Obama -

not that I feel a need to justify anything to the likes of you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. Well, here's hoping they get up & going again real soon. So you don't

have to contend "with the likes of me". Perhaps you got kicked out for not donating?

[jefferson_dem]

55. His name is "Barack Obama".

:)

[AllentownJake]

26. Krugman has a nobel prize

I believe Krugman honestly hopes he's wrong about the President's plan. Limbaugh...not so much.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Krugman = Limbaugh?

Oh brother.

[wroberts189]

33. Krugman is doing his best to help Obama. Obama said he wanted to hear all sides. nt

[neverforget]

34. Just a tad over the top

[chill_wind]

44. Read his bio. He's a zealot personality who has exchanged party stripes

(former Republican fundamentalist) to replace old zeal for the charismatic with new. Obama is probably the ONLY Democrat he admires.

[QC]

63. Yes, he is like David Horowitz, who, though a right winger now, still thinks like the Stalinist

that he was for so many years.

[neverforget]

105. As I said a tad over the top. See, I like Obama AND Krugman. I know

that may be like oil and water to some, but it's true. I want Obama to succeed but feel that he is getting bad advice. Obama is doing great so far, i just disagree on this point.

[Better Believe It]

35. Krugman's nightmare is Obama failing thereby driving the nation into another Great Depression

What b.s. comparing Krugman to Limbaugh and claiming they both want Obama to fail!

Get your shovels out, the b.s. is getting pretty thick!

[PBS Poll-435]

40. It is a rather apt comparison.

Krugman wants America to fail unless we are utilizing his "fix."

[Bjorn Against]

102. Can you find me a quote where he says anything even remotely like that?

Or are you just one of those mind readers who knows what he must be thinking?

[ArchieStone1]

37. We've heard it all

Krugman=Limbaugh.

Oh boy.

[Political Heretic]

38. I don't believe PK would lament if the plan "works" - I think he just strongly believes it won't.

Whereas I think Rush would actually be pissed if the US comes out of recession and credit is given to Obama's leadership.

[jefferson_dem]

57. I hope you are correct...and that we find out if that's the case.

I think the comparisons made by the author in the OP are persuasive, until we learn otherwise. Hopefully, Krugman offers more perspective as we move forward, and the President chooses to not (necessarily) rely on Krugman's preferred prescriptions.

[Political Heretic]

39. PS - I find it interesting and kind of surprising how freaked out people are about PK.

The fact that DU has had a fucking conniption fit over the fact that this guy disagrees with Obama sort of blows my mind. So what? I mean I happen to think that PK's analysis is right, but what difference does it make? Obama is going to give his plan a try either way.

So what's the big deal? Why this crusade to demonize and brand PK as the devil just because he voices dissent? I happen to like dissent. It's one of the things that reminds me I still live in America.

[spoony]

42. Great post.

Obama himself would likely be disturbed by the feeding frenzy against Krugman, since he has consistently said he's open to opinions other than his own.

[Reterr]

51. It is bizarre

It is like you can't genuinely disagree with fellow Dems without being some sort of stealth Freeper :eyes:..
Paranoid rubbish. I happen to agree with Krugman and think there is too much at stake here for mistakes. Seriously we were this close to getting McCain fucking Palin last time. Obama really needs to try to capitalize on the public's goodwill and not squander it. Seriously, I find the idea that the decisions he is taking are so complicated and intricate that an a citizen of average intelligence and education cannot see that some of his decisions so far have been mistakes. Shit he has made some outright mistakes, but still we are all supposed to curl up and think of the "Chill the fuck-I got this" picture and feel all warm and cosy inside?


Get real....:eyes:.

[chill_wind]

53. They are freaked because they can't be sure he is wrong.

Despite all the self-reassuring bluster and acrimony. All their eggs are in one basket. Geithner's.

[jefferson_dem]

58. Wrong.

All *our* eggs are in one basket. No matter how many times one reads "The Conscience of a Liberal" and Krugman's editorials, that alone won't alter the actual economic climate.

[NJmaverick]

79. You are not being honest about the role Krugman is playing

he is not just stating his opinion, as you try to have us believe. Rather Krugman has gone on an anti-Obama crusade complete with Krugman trying to demonize Obama, his team and his plans.

[Sparkly]

109. I'm with you.

:hi:

[firedupdem]

41. Hell of an article...wowzers!!! n/t

[tritsofme]

43. If Krugman is wrong, he breathes a sigh of relief. The premise of this article is ridiculous.

Equating Krugman to Rush Limbaugh shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

Either that, or they are being intentionally misleading in order to attack Krugman.

[chill_wind]

47. Seems Schaeffer is a product of a lot of conditioning. His father:

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

(...)

Influence on the Christian Right

Christian Right leaders such as Tim LaHaye have credited Schaeffer for influencing their theological arguments urging political participation by evangelicals.<16> Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, also acknowledged the influence of Schaeffer.

Beginning in the 1990s, critics began exploring the intellectual/ideological connection between Schaeffer’s political activism and writings of the early 1980s to contemporary religious-political trends in the Christian Right, sometimes grouped under the name Dominionism, with mixed conclusions.

Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson<17> have written articles tracing the activism of numerous key figures in the Christian Right to the influence of Francis Schaeffer. According to Diamond: "The idea of taking dominion over secular society gained widespread currency with the 1981 publication of...Schaeffer's book A Christian Manifesto. The book sold 290,000 copies in its first year, and it remains one of the movement's most frequently cited texts."<18> Diamond summarizes the book and its importance to the Christian Right:

In A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer's argument is simple. The United States began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. But as society became more pluralistic, with each new wave of immigrants, proponents of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate debate on policy issues. Since humanists place human progress, not God, at the center of their considerations, they pushed American culture in all manner of ungodly directions, the most visible results of which included legalized abortion and the secularization of the public schools.

At the end of -- A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer calls for Christians to use civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality, which explains Schaeffer's popularity with groups like Operation Rescue. Randall Terry has credited Schaeffer as a major influence in his life.<18>

(...)

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

Perhaps he hasn't escaped it all completely. The extremist worldview. Perhaps he has--he's written a book about his part of his life in it.

Here's a review from someone who knew him and the family:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html?start=2

[Reterr]

52. Good grief

This article is Limbaughesque crap in itself. Krugman is a fellow liberal Dem. Just because he is critical of some of Obama's economic policies he must now be equated to Limbaugh :crazy:? Hyperbolic nonsense...

So now every long term liberal/lefty Dem who ever voices any criticism of Obama should be equated with far right loons? Now that IS Freeperish thinking....

[CTLawGuy]

59. Paul Krugman

is more than just "critical" of Obama's policies, he constantly trashed him in the primary, before the economy took center stage in this election. He sophomorically compared Obama supporters to cultists, and blamed them entirely for the acrimony in the primary.

He is not just someone who has a different view, he is someone who has never given Obama a shred of credit for anything. And it is through that lens that many Obama supporters see Krugman.

[QC]

65. Well, Schaeffer *was* a freeper until a few months ago.... n/t

[ClarkUSA]

66. Not true... Schaeffer supported Obama during the general election.

[chill_wind]

67. He says he switched to Independant after Bush. But he wasn't just ANY Freeper.

He was on the board of the Reconstructionist Rutherford Institute Board along with Gary North as a f*#ing founding member.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=551

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/03/frank-schaeffer-on-gays-ex-gays-the-religious-right/

Thanks for the legacy of Christian hate, Mr. Schaeffer. I'm glad your are busy rehabilitating yourself. Even if you still can't tell the difference a liberal and a life-long career liberal hater like Limbaugh. You seem to fit right in very well with some at DU.

[Starry Messenger]

85. I thought that name sounded familiar.

Thank you. That is all I need to know.

[QC]

108. He is our very own David Horowitz. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

61. I had an OP last week which drew a similar Krugman/Limbaugh connection vis-a-vis President Obama.

At the time, some folks expressed poutrage but I guess I'm not the only one who sees the obvious.

[NJmaverick]

80. The more people hear Krugman's attacks, the more people that will see the light

I also was ahead of the curve on this issue.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Amen.

I know you have always been on to Krugman's agenda. I have no doubt that everyone who's defending him now was cheering
him on during the primaries, too.

[ecstatic]

70. knr nt

[NJmaverick]

74. Frank hits the nail squarely on the head

:toast:

[Baikonour]

75. More anti-Krugman rhetoric, comparing him to LIMBAUGH.

A nobel winner IN ECONOMICS and one of Bush's loudest critics. But since he's going after Obama, he's now public enemy number one in the liberal blogosphere.

Hilarious.

[Maven]

82. WE GET IT: KRUGMAN DARED QUESTION OBAMA, NOW HE MUST BE DESTROYED

I can't even believe you'd post this freeper trash. Oh wait, yes I would -- it serves your purpose as a Party Line Enforcer...

:puke:

[jefferson_dem]

83. Party Line Enforcer.

Dayum! :rofl:

But I'm confused. It's freeperish to highlight the Krugman/Limbaugh axis - who have staked their hopes and/or reputations on Obama's failure? That's a serious strrrretch...

[Maven]

84. There is no axis between Krugman and fucking LIMBAUGH

and if you agree with this dude that there is, you're as big a liar as he is.

Krugman wants Obama to succeed, he's just worried that Obama's approach is WRONG. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail so Repukes can get elected.

I mean, are you fuckin serious???

This is a PERFECT example of the Party Line Enforcer M.O. - when a well intentioned person criticizes Obama, instead of addressing the criticism, you discredit the person making it by characterizing them as someone with a secret agenda, who thus need not be listened to. It's brownshirt, Rovian bullshit and it needs to stop. Obama himself would NOT approve.

[NJmaverick]

88. I am hard pressed to see how you devine Krugman's intentions as noble

after all if he wanted Obama to succeed, wouldn't his publicity blitz being trying to boost consumer confidence and the public's faith in our economic future? As an economist surely his is aware how damaging his comments can be.

[Bjorn Against]

104. So you are suggesting he doesn't speak his true feelings and instead launch a propaganda campaign?

You seem to be suggesting that he lie to the public and try to make things look more rosy than they actually are, that is propaganda pure and simple. Krugman has long been a voice of dissent, he was speaking out loudly against Bush when many Democrats were bending over backwards to show their support for Bush. Krugman is still the same person he was when Bush was in office, when he thinks something is wrong he will speak out even if it ruffles a few feathers.

[Telly Savalas]

113. So he should being saying that the fundamentals of the economy are sound?

Where have I heard that before?

[jefferson_dem]

91. So you know of Krugman's motivations, what Obama would and would not approve of...

and suggest your fellow DUers are freeper, brownshirts engaged in Rovian tactics.

Wow. Who's "the enforcer" again?

By the way, I spoke to my take on the Krugman/Limbaugh conflation upthread.

[Maven]

92. I would suggest you, and many like you, who are engaged in an obvious

character assassination campaign since Krugman's recent articles criticizing Obama's economic plans, are engaged in Rovian, brownshirt tactics.

Yes.

[Starry Messenger]

87. Please read chill_wind in post #67 of this thread.

Schaeffer is serious right winger.

[jefferson_dem]

90. Thanks. I read his bio before posting this piece.

And I figured it would likely produce more heat than light, hence the "hmmmm" in the OP.

Schaeffer has apparently undergone a serious conversion and is no longer a right winger.

See this from his wiki entry -

On October 10, 2008 a public letter to Senator McCain (and Sarah Palin) from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper.<6> The letter contained an impassioned plea for John McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful, and prejudiced tone of the Republican party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence. "If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters ... history will hold you responsible for all that follows."<6>

[Maven]

93. He apparently didn't change all his stripes.

You two have much in common, it seems.

[jefferson_dem]

94. Well, we are both ...

dudes. :shrug:

[Starry Messenger]

95. He still appears to suffer from black and white thinking.

I'm glad he denounced the prejudiced tone of the Republicans. However, that doesn't make him a voice of the Democratic Party either. I will still take this with a massive grain of salt. As I'm sure others have noted, comparing a man like Krugman to the loathsome Rush Limbaugh just puts up all kinds of red flags.

[Sparkly]

99. Apparently!

:crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

100. Spare us the ridiculous poutrage strawman melodrama. Many liberals like me agree with the OP.

[ClarkUSA]

98. Krugman refuses to work for the Obama administration yet he worked for President Reagan and Enron.

That should tell us something about his political roots, which is another thing he and Limbaugh have in common.

[merkins]

101. F.U.D.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. I take issue with your Rush Limbaugh comparison.

He's really more of a Ralph Nader.

[Vattel]

106. God that article is stupid

[Cha]

107. But, krugman said.."nobody has a bigger megaphone

than he does"..Is he just talking about "megaphones"?

[Forkboy]

110. Anyone buying this nonsense should be ashamed to be seen in public..

"The Krugman/Limbaugh legacy"

What kind of brain dead green sputum of a person would even take anything seriously past this point?

Ooooh Gd-P, you've done it again....



Hey Jefferson, you listen to self proclaimed "life long Republican voters" often, or is this a new development?

[jefferson_dem]

112. Here's a funny factoid: Schaeffer has been a proud public supporter of this Democratic President...

for longer than Krugman. I assume Krugman did finally get on board after spending the primary season in full Obama-bash mode.

PS: The Magoo reference... :rofl: Good 'un...

[ContinentalOp]

117. There's a big difference between the two of them...

Limbaugh's always wrong and his audience doesn't care. He'll be fine either way. I wonder what will happen to Krugman's credibility though? It seems like he's setting himself up to look pretty foolish.