Paul Krugman: Gibbs' "professional left" comments unprofessional, unfair and stupid

[30rock]

KRUGMAN (8-11-2010):

"What gets me is how unprofessional the whole thing is.

Look, if you’re a public figure of any kind, you’re going to face a lot of criticism. Much of it will seem unfair to you; some of the unfair criticism will come from people you expected to take your side; you’ll be angry, you’ll feel that people are putting their egos or their personal aggrandizement above the cause.

Welcome to reality. It’s my reality — and I’m just a professor/columnist. Someone actually in the White House has to be prepared for much more of this kind of thing — and if you don’t have a thick enough skin to take it, find another form of employment.

I’m not saying to turn the other cheek and always say something polite as a general principle; by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so. Rudeness at the proper moment can serve a purpose — as I hope I’ve demonstrated over the years. But if you vent for the sake of venting; if you alienate people you’re going to need; then you’re just being stupid.

And that, I’m afraid, is what’s going on here. Rachel Maddow isn’t going to go away, or turn all meek, because the White House Press Secretary implicitly denounced her. Even more to the point, liberal critics have an audience because they’re reflecting real concerns of real people. Those concerns need addressing, if necessary in the form of explanations of why their expectations can’t be met. Denouncing the people giving voice to those real concerns as the “professional left” is both unfair and, as I’ve said, stupid."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/in-the-matter-of-robert-l-gibbs/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

[ProSense]

1. "by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so." Interesting

I think Gibbs must know something Krugman doesn't.

It's interesting that people are making this about Gibbs vs. liberals. The comments weren't unclear, they were very specific. They were true, but still, what is it about Gibbs making the point that Obama is nothing like Bush that they find so offensive?

There is a point where some of this is beginning to look intentional or manufactured. Congressmen coming out of the woodwork, commentary by every left pundit. Even Bob Shrum weighed in.

Maybe Gibbs (Burton and the WH) believes there is something to be gained. Maybe Gibbs is frustrated because, as Alan Grayson claimed, the message about the administration's significant achievements aren't being communicated effectively. Achievements that Grayson seems mighty proud of.

[rhett o rick]

6. Yeah right, "Gibbs must know something". It is clear to me that Gibbs speaking for the WH doesnt

like the left. Now I ask myself why. Why does the WH have such hatred toward the left? They hate the left more than the Faux News. Maybe they are trying to win over someone like the ex-republican "centrists".

If you have an explanation, I would love to hear it.

[TheKentuckian]

13. I'd tend to bet there is little that Gibbs knows that Krugman doesn't

There is always some faith based cock and bull to explain away reports from our lying ass eyes and when it turns out to be crap the boogie man is rolled out to the tune of whining about only having one of the largest majorities in history.

[Clio the Leo]

2. ....

:rofl:

..... so the guy who spent the greater part of the last year and a half telling us all the things the President has done wrong has found something ELSE to add to the list!?

HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! That's so funny I cant breathe!!!! HA HA HA

"alienate people you’re going to need" ........ HA HA HA ........ YES! Soccer moms across the country are PATIENTLY waiting for Krugman and the link to tell them who to vote for! Exactly!

[30rock]

3. Krugman supported the HCR bill a lot

Didn't he? And it's worth noting that Obama's most ardent supporters say HCR was his greatest achievement so far. So why do you dismiss Krugman's supporting his greatest achievement? Perhaps you are referring to his warning that the stimulus was too small.

Don't you think that the GDP being revised to 1.4% today and the high unemployment prove him right?

[Clio the Leo]

5. Yeah, but I missed the article where Krugman offered his strategy....

... on how to get a larger simulus package passed.

He's an intelligent guy, but he strikes me as being heavy on economic knowledge and light on political knowledge.

And I need both.

I'm dismissing Krugman because I despise armchair quarterbacks.

[roguevalley]

32. I don't dismiss him because he's been right. Gibbs reflected the

white house because no one sneezes in that place without clearing it. they hate us for whatever reason and given the thinness of the enthusiasm in the current elections, alienating even one vote is assinine. But then, gibbs is that for this no matter what the reason. Period. The last thing we need to show is disunity and going off message that the pugs are shit. He really is a crappy spokesman when I know that and he either doesn't or doesn't care. if they want me to pat their asses about HC, never. I read what it is and the 2014-2020 kick ins and its shit.

[CTyankee]

40. I hate to say this but Krugman has been reliably correct in his assessments.

I've actually shuddered while reading a Krugman column over the past couple of years...and I hoped he was wrong, I wanted him to be wrong. The thing is, he wasn't wrong...and I think he had high hopes for Obama. But his job is being a professor and a columnist. He strikes me as nobody's fool...

[dkf]

4. The main point is that we do have concerns that are not being addressed.

When we criticize Obama for not advocating for a public option we never get a clear response on his position or his personal reservations or if someone is blocking it or why it can't be done. There is an expectation that we will trust him and because we do we need no explanation. Or is the refusal to address us the arrogance Obama is constantly being accused of?

All I know is I still don't understand if Obama is a supporter or a blocker of a public option. That is only one area that I don't feel I've got adequate feedback on.

[Political Tiger]

7. "Rachel Maddow isn’t going to go away....because the WH Press Secretary implicitly denounced her."

Good Lord! What an idiot! I know Krugman has this overwhelming desire to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, but he should at least get his facts straight. Gibbs said nothing about Rachel Maddow, implicitly or otherwise. In fact, Maddow has had more praise than criticism for this president. She's not been afraid to use her show to highlight how much this president has accomplished less than two years into his first term. For example:

"It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations. Wall Street reform agreement…health reform…the stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system…Tax incentives for renewable and clean energy…unheralded but giant investment in science and tech…also expanded state kids` health insurance to cover another four million kids…the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries` arsenals by a third…an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons…The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act…dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service…overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system…The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that." -Rachel Maddow

If Krugman would get off his self-righteous high horse once in a while he might understand using Maddow as an example only shows how out of touch he is. What a fool!

Of course Krugman's base doesn't care about facts, and he knows it. He knows to keep them coming back to read his claptrap he's got to keep them angry, because he knows they strive off anger, and since they worship him, he knows he can just make it up as he goes along because they wouldn't dare question him as long as he tells them what they want and need to hear.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Batshit paranoia territory there

[30rock]

11. You're right. Gibbs was referring to those who said the Pentagon should be eliminated

=nobody.

I'm sorry, but since Gibbs' "professional left" invention is so vague, columnists have the right to think X or Y was a target. Or Gibbs could stop being a coward and name names, in which case the debate would be over.

[roguevalley]

33. gibbs was talking about professional libs and that means rachel

and the rest of the media included. he isn't making this up. He is clear and so was gibbs.

[martymar64]

50. Yeah Krugman is so dumb, he won a Nobel Prize that he actually EARNED

as opposed to others.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

10. Ooohhh! The evil DLC

Do any of you ever realize that when you bring up the DLC you sound just like conservatives when they demonize Muslims or illegal aliens?

[30rock]

12. How about those who call Krugman an "idiot"? Don't they sound like conservatives?

?

[JamesA1102]

14. No conservatives call Krugman an ideologue not an idiot. nt

[30rock]

15. Isn't idiot worse? And do conservatives condemn the DLC for being too centrist?

They do not.

[JamesA1102]

16. Wow you're really missing the point!

Which is that too many on the left use the DLC as some sort of all purpose bogeyman like the right has used communism, muslims, aliens etc.

[roguevalley]

35. given the craven ineptitude of the dlc, we don't have to use it as

a bogeyman. we just have to report what they do. nice try.

[JamesA1102]

42. Wow! Thank you for proving my point! nt

[Political Tiger]

17. Why would you think that?

I guarantee this Krugman trash will be posted all en masse on Conservative media. In fact, go to Free Republic and do a search for Paul Krugman and you'll see his Obama bashing OP's are posted all over that site.

[30rock]

18. That's bad logic

IT's not logic to say that because X is posted on right-wing sites, then X is necessarily idiotic. Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments.

Wingnuts are instigators. Doesn't mean Krugman is an idiot.

[SunsetDreams]

20. Interesting, and your linking to it because?

"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."

[30rock]

21. Right. Gibbs might hurt Democrats' chances

I think you asked me to repeat it.

[SunsetDreams]

23. So you are linking to it

to help hurt Democratic chances? Please clarify

"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."

[30rock]

24. I don't get it. You mean hyperlinks? What link did I post?

Explain what you mean by linking. Linking what to what?

[SunsetDreams]

26. read back over what you wrote

[30rock]

27. Oh! i get it. You are telling me that ANYONE who links to Krugman's article is a conservative, lol

Your logic was so twisted it took me a while to comprehend it.

Right-wingers would hype Krugman's article in order to hurt Gibbs, without asking him to stops being idiotic. The right agrees with Gibbs that the Left "wants the Pentagon eliminated." but the right knows that the liberal base disliked the commments. So the right would want to make sure they amplify his gaffe.

Krugman (and I) are hoping Gibbs stop being idiotic. That's why Krugman gave Gibbs some good advice.

And this is all a hypothesis, as I have not seen Krugman's article in Rush Limbaugh's page or Sean Hannity's TV show yet.

[SunsetDreams]

28. No, I don't think you are a conservative

you said that, I didn't.

What you did say is this:

"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."


You stated that they link to those to hurt Democratic chances in Novemember. Then you say "which is true". So it's a fair question to ask you, if you think that is the reason, then why are you doing it also?

[democrat2thecore]

29. Go to Merriam-Webster and look up this word: C O N T E X T ...-nt

[SunsetDreams]

31. I don't need to

but thank you for answering for the OP.

[w4rma]

19. Agreed. They are. (nt)

[roguevalley]

34. and you are sad. the DLC is the worst part of our party, the professional quizling

[JamesA1102]

43. Thanks for proving my point! nt

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democrat2thecore]

25. Rockefeller Republicans...You know, that's EXACTLY what this administration is all about.

Very well-written post. Honestly, I had never thought of it in those terms, but your first three paragraphs are as good as any I've read on DU in a long time.

Rockefeller Republicans. Of course!

[depakid]

52. Not sure why that word is anathema around here- since they were more progressive on some issues

Than the current administration or many in the Senate leadership.

Their attitudes, beliefs and values pretty well mirrored "the ruling coalition's."

That's just a fact, reviewable on the record.

[democrat2thecore]

53. Um, that's the point -nt

[geek tragedy]

30. Krugman is entirely sensible in this regard, with

one minor exception--Rachel Maddow almost certainly is not whom Gibbs had in mind when making that comment.

[roguevalley]

36. since gibbs is too cowardly to name names, we can't know for sure

[geek tragedy]

37. If Maddow were a DU'er, she'd have been labeled a cheerleader. nt

[last_texas_dem]

44. I highly doubt that.

The strongest criticisms of Maddow I've seen on this site have been from the folks who think she's being too hard on the Obama administration (aka the "cheerleaders"). Personally, I think she's one of the most evenhanded liberal pundits out there.

[martymar64]

51. and her fact checking crew is excellent, bar none

She and her crew really do their homework.

[IntravenousDemilo]

38. What Krugman appears to be saying, and which is correct, is that in the game of politics...

... sometimes it pays to be politic.

[impik]

39. Now that everyone who were so "offended" by Gibbs

had their chance to kick him - and the president - again, can we move on to try and beat the GOP, or is beating Obama is more important?

[Kdillard]

45. But where is the fun in that. No faux outrage to spend energy beating up

the party.

[realFedUp]

41. As part of the "PL" during Bush's terms, I wish I'd been paid.

WTF is the "professional WH" team doing with this angle?

[whistler162]

46. Perhaps... but accurate!

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fogonthelake]

48. so, you calling those who disagree with an Obama policy a douchebag?

[Phx_Dem]

49. LOL. He doesn't say they aren't true.