Krugman and the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

Paul Krugman is the dumbest Nobel Laureate I have had the honor of meeting.

Oh, yes, I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Krugman in New York City several years ago.  And I can honestly say, he is getting more aggravating and less intelligent as the years go on.

Today in his editorial in the New York Times, Krugman starts by stating, “This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.”  He would have been better off stopping right there.

Krugman goes on to talk about how the GOP is a minority party, they are crazy, blah blah blah.  Then, he destroys his own argument by saying that they were just as crazy 15 years ago, but they were able to take power.  Um, what?

He goes on.  “Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.”  First, not true…but who cares about facts when you are on a good rant?

His final attack is on this week’s national Tax Day Tea Parties.  He calls them artificial.  Maybe, as a knuckle-headed liberal elitist economist, he didn’t notice:  all politics is artificial.  For example, do you really thing Barack Obama was responsible for rescuing the hostage from Somali pirates?

Krugman talks about artificial movements.  Well, this is a liberal movement to attack the ground swell of anger and despair over the Obama Administration.  Liberals, and the government, are trying to portray the right as extreme and out of the mainstream.

Don’t believe me?  How about this:  The Department of Homeland Security published a new report today called “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” No, I am not making this up. Michelle Malkin has a piece about it here.  If you read the report, it gives no evidence or instances of extremism.  All it does is portray conservatism as extreme and dangerous.  Read the report yourself.  It is political propaganda at its best.

Don’t believe me?  One of the group it attacks?  Veterans.  The American Legion took offense to that.  In response, the American Legion national commander, David K. Rehbein sent to Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano a letter, asking for clarification.  Mr. Rehbein stated,

The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.

Now comes the news that the Civil Rights Division of the DHS questioned the report before it was released.

From Bob Shrum to Paul Krugman, there are numerous liberal commentators that are just pawns in the ‘Vast Left Wing Conspiracy’ against conservatives.  They all question the vitality of the Republican Party.  How soon do we forget; can you remember questions in 2002 and 2004 whether the Democratic Party was dead?  Here are just three examples of articles about those days:  1, 2, 3.  Four years later we have Barack Obama.  And while these commentators plead for us to give the President time to revamp his agenda, they don’t do the same for the Republican Party.  Ironic.

Paul Krugman may be a great economist; I have doubts about that as well, but I will admit my knowledge on the subject is limited.  But the problem with egotistical liberals is that they think they know about everything; the piece today shows Krugman is lost when it comes to the realities of politics.

32 thoughts on “Krugman and the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

  • April 14, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Why are conservatives getting so defensive about a generic “how to spot a nut-job” pamplet?

  • April 14, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Because any time your government creates political propaganda in the name of ‘security’ you should be worried…whether it is about the left or the right.

  • April 14, 2009 at 9:42 am

    I wouldn’t call a “nut job” someone who is against abortion.

  • April 14, 2009 at 9:47 am

    Well, I suppose I’ve been conditioned to accept this sort of thing after the last administration was so focused on circumventing The Constitution in the name of security.

  • April 14, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Funny…but I think this administration is doing a pretty good job of circumventing the Constitution the name of financial security.

  • April 14, 2009 at 9:51 am

    “Paul Krugman may be a great economist.”

    That’s like saying “Michael Jordan was a great athlete.” Was he a great football player? A great tennis player? Hockey? Krugman’s expertise is in the field of international trade. Anything he states on any other topic is no more likely to be correct than any random passerby you care to query.

  • April 14, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Krugman is spot on correct. Get over it.

  • April 14, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Ironic indeed what’s being done to save capitalism.

  • April 14, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Conservatives up in a huff about this pamphlet are hilarious. If you are conservative but do not physically attack other people who disagree with you, then this pamphlet is not about you.

    Nobody cares if you are anti-abortion. They care if you commit violence against those that are not.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:15 am

    Would you include the American Legion among those that physically attack others? They are specifically mentioned in the report.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Since the Republicans had power in all 3 branches of the government for 6 years and accompished nothing other than running the country into the ground, they should just be quiet, perhaps even pitch in, and wait to see if anything gets better in the next few years. They haven’t proposed anything, other than the same old “Cut taxes” which does not work. The Republican base is a bunch of uneducated white folk who become single issue obsessed (abortion, immigration, guns, taxes) and spend no time ever trying to educate themselves on a broader spectrum of issues. These are, of course, all the viewers of FOX News. It is NOT rocket science.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:45 am

    Can you give me an example when your own side, the Democrats, kept that advice, shut up and let Republicans have their way? Of course you can’t. Don’t be a hypocrite. You guys supported any and all means to stop Republicans for the last decade or so, and now the same occurs in reverse.

    And for the record, I don’t really watch FoxNews, CNN, or MSNBC. I think all TV news is absurd.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Jay (April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am) >> Conservatives up in a huff about this pamphlet are hilarious. If you are conservative but do not physically attack other people who disagree with you, then this pamphlet is not about you.

    Nobody cares if you are anti-abortion. They care if you commit violence against those that are not.

    Would you have been as accepting of this similar statement: “People up in a huff about the Patriot Act are hilarious. If you do not physically attack other people, then this Act is not about you”? I’ll bet not. And that was FAR more targeted at people who had actually aligned themselves with violent groups.

    As for the notion that this is only about VIOLENT anti-abortionists, why mention the abortion issue at all? I’d wager 99.9999% of anti-abortionists are non-violent, at least as a means to express their anti-abortion views. I’d suggest that as a class they are less violent than white people, or black people, or left-handed people for that matter; but there’s no caution about any of those groups. Because this isn’t about spotting violent tendencies, it’s about stigmatizing, and eventually criminalizing, conservative expression.

    I’m the ultimate unexcitable corporate drone. I’m nearly 50 years old, a university educated computer programmer (and not the cool cutting-edge stuff), and no radical (the most radical organization I’ve ever belonged to is the Boy Scouts). But for the first time in my life I fear that our constitutional republic is in dire peril. This looks to me like they’re laying the groundwork for some manner of “virtual Siberia”, where our movements are watched especially closely. Our universities and corporations already have a pretty long history of sending people for ‘sensitivity training’ if they express the “wrong” thoughts; why should I think we’re not headed for the same place with our government, when a mere viewpoint — one that is consistent with our current form of government — puts us on a watch-list?

    Remember, when they come after your liberties, that you failed to stand with us for ours.

  • April 14, 2009 at 12:06 pm


    Cutting taxes does not work? It is quite simple math. Take less money from people’s pockets (of course the one’s who pay taxes are those nasty “rich people”)then they spend on services, products which , yes, does trickle down. Think of the person who hires a landscaper. He employs people, buys trucks, supplies, gas. He then needs a truck repaired so he goes to a repair shop (of which we have). The repair shop buys parts thus supporting small businesses (many of them family owned). Or the landscaper needs a new truck built. He then buys a chassis from a dealer and a bed from another company. And so on and so on. If that is not clear then who is the uneducated “white” person. By the way, that seems a bit of a racist comment. But of course you as an extremely educated left of center “person” is allowed to spew racists comments.

  • April 14, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Well, during the Bush era and the warrantless wiretapping and violations of Constitutional protection against warrantless searches, the neo-coonservatives were fond of proclaiming “if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you’ve nothing to worry about”.

    Shouldn’t that same mindset hold true today? Or has the morbidity of hypocrisy come home to the practitioners of that black craft?

  • April 14, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Roberto: I’m short on time, so I’ll try to be brief.
    * Republicans didn’t control “all 3” branches of government. The SCOTUS has been balanced for decades.
    * Totally agree with you that Republicans betrayed the trust of conservatives while they held Exec & Legislative branches, mostly by overspending.
    * Your notion that Republicans “ran the country into the ground” is naive and overly simplistic. The economy is a complicated machine, and the biggest make made on BOTH sides of the political aisle was thinking they knew how to perfectly control it.
    * Cutting taxes DID work. We emerged from the recession, and government revenues increased. Unfortunately, already profligate spending continued to grow (and now is growing exponentially).
    * You should actually watch Fox News sometime, and you’d know more about it. I would never use it as a primary news source (it’s not THAT fair & balanced), but virtually every opinion-oriented show has a pretty balanced guest-list. The hosts lean right, and make no bones about it, but they let the opposition have their say, and usually the last word. Actually, I wish I could take some sort of poll to find out, but I’ll bet there are more conservatives who read the NYT and WaPo than there are liberals who read WSJ and watch Fox News.
    * In defense of single-issue voters: if I were in Nazi Germany in 1943, and had the ability to vote for a government, and I knew about the concentration camps, I’d have been a one-issue voter. If I were in the U.S. in 1859, during a time when men were held as slaves, I’d have been a single-issue voter. And today, with – what, 2 million babies a year aborted in the U.S., I’m pretty much a single-issue voter. If you have a problem with that, then so be it.
    * Your notion that Republicans are uneducated (as opposed to liberals who are) is nonsensical.
    * Got a meeting. Gotta run.

  • April 14, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Well, during the Bush era and the warrantless wiretapping and violations of Constitutional protection against warrantless searches, the neo-coonservatives were fond of proclaiming “if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you’ve nothing to worry about”.
    This certainly was problematic in some cases, and there were certainly people making that argument — often in cases where it was unjustified. I, and I think most conservatives, would have liked to see explicit and severe punishment for use of wiretaps for personal or political purposes. I would feel the same about a Bush administration operative listening in on Code Pink members as I do about the government employee in Ohio making public the personal information about Joe the Plumber.

    However there were many times when that argument WAS reasonable, especially in the case of following a person of interest rather than a particular phone number, or tapping a call that would have always been legal to tap from OUTSIDE the U.S. (because one of the parties was specifically suspected of terrorist ties), but skipping the meaningless step of setting that tap outside the U.S.

    In the case of this DHS report, however, there can be no justification. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. That clearly implies that it is legitimate to have grievances. To single citizens out as de facto suspects just because they hold a particular viewpoint — when they have never committed any threatening act or made any threatening statement — is the height of tyranny. It is the difference between working to prevent the violent overthrow of the government on the one hand, and preventing people from attempting to effect change through the political process on the other.

  • April 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    If cutting taxes is the key that unlocks the cell in which ‘prosperity for all’ remains unfairly incarcerated, then why not take THE logical step and disallow ALL taxes, forevermore, period? Why not disallow ALL government spending on anything (and that necessarily includes the military, of course),forevermore, period? YES!!! Let the happiness and prosperity implicit in unencumbered disestablishmentarianism rule! YES!!! Jack London named it: he called it “The Song of the Younger World”! Hey, why not SING it?! TEABAGS, TEABAGS, TEABAGS!!

    TEABAGS!! America unter alles. Hallelu-JA!

  • April 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Sorry, Roberto: Tax cuts HAVE worked… every time they’ve been tried.

    That is, if you want MORE money to come into the Treasury.

    Even JFK understood this, but that was back when Democrats were governing from realism, and not symbolism (rich, fair share, blah blah blah)

    Would it be OK with you if you cut the tax on the rich if they ended up paying more in taxes to the IRS? If not… then you are not being honest. Like Obama (and modern Democrats), you don’t care how much they pay, just that you want it to be “fair”.

    JFK was the last democrat that didn’t care about appearance and just wanted more $ to come in… that’s why he cut taxes for everyone, just like Reagan and Bush.

    And no more “tax cuts for the rich” BS. Bush’s tax cuts dropped my taxes too. And I am FAR from rich. After the cuts, I had to pay NO income taxes. If it wasn’t for that tax cut, I would have had to pay.

  • April 14, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    This report was started over a year ago… so this isn’t an Obama thing. But, I find it funny how they never mention any leftist group or warning about them.

    When’s the last time you saw a group of Conservatives riot? Other than the original Tea Party, cons do not riot. Sheesh.

  • April 14, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Neoavatara, I can give you an example of a time the left listened to a good idea from the right: The Surge. Once Bush started listening to his intelligent military men (Petraeus) over his incompetents (Rumsfeld) the moderate left listened as well. This is why the surge passed. Don’t judge the left by the wacko noisemakers, just like no one should judge the right by the dangerous nuts.

    Also, reports like this require much more than three months, in general. This report was begun and researched under Bush. Just like intelligence reports should not be used for political gain, they should not be used to attack the administration that had no hand in their making. The DHS is an invention of a Republican president, its report begun under his leadership. What you can attack an administration for is the actions it takes in response to said report. When Barack Obama claims (without support from this or any intel report) that such all right-wing activist groups are in league with Al-Qaeda and starts a unilateral war against them, then you will have a much stronger case.

  • April 14, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    I wish you were right. But you are not. Barack Obama still refuses to state clearly that the surge was a success. Either does Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. In fact, I can’t think of one Democrat that has clearly come out and said that Bush made the right decision. Still, whether this report is Bush’s or Obama’s fault, it is a stupid report. I think there are threats to the homeland, to be sure, but lumping the entire right wing into that is not helpful.

  • April 14, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Don’t believe me? One of the group it attacks? The American Legion.

    It would probably have taken a lot less time to actually read the report than to do all this writing about it. It’s only 9 pages long. The American Legion is NOT mentioned in the report. They got involved in the controversy because there are numerous references to disgruntled veterans. Only a truly raving lunatic leftist would consider the American Legion to be a rightwing extremist group, especially since some of their biggest issues are always pro-government spending — the VA system and such.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    Tom Freidman, perhaps the most influential moderate liberal in the country right now, has unceasingly supported the strategy of the surge, as have many moderate Dems-Ken Salazar, for example. In fact, Freidman said in his column today that the surge was the right move, and commentator or not, Freidman is a very influential democrat.

    The report, in fact, does not lump the right-wing together, any more than an intel report on al-Qaeda represents an slur on all of Islam. There are elements within the American Legion, to use your example, that DHS considers worth observation–same as within the 60s student activists there were the Weathermen. Hardly sweeping propaganda. The trends of extremism mentioned in the report are real, and the reason they are currently concentrated in the far far right is that the left is currently in ascendency. Left-wing nutters aren’t so offended by a black president as right-wing ones…think about it. They get madder at things like, I dunno, money? or other people having any.

  • April 14, 2009 at 11:19 pm

    I’m sorry, I omitted a word. Tom Freidman is the most influential moderate liberal COMMENTATOR in the country.
    Important in the sentence. Blame it on sleep dep.

  • April 15, 2009 at 5:50 am

    Regular Joe you make some valid points. My question…where was the conservative outrage when the Bush administration squelched American’s right to assemble by arresting people for the simple act of wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt at a Bush speech? Where was the outrage when NYC police, acting in concert with federal officials, arrested 1,800 protesers pre-emptively during the 2004 Republican convention?

    I find it humorous how both extreme liberals and conservatives are so sensitive to their ideals being trampled upon but when it’s “their” party doing the trampling to others the sensitivity transforms into a blind eye.

    The DHS document seems to me, on the one hand, to be a reasonable response to a potential threat (hey, there’s some crazies out there thinking of inflicting violence, meybe we should monitor them) and overtly political on another (why focus on nebulous, unidentified “right-wing extremists” while ignoring equally potentially dangerous fringe Left groups? I’m not sure which it is…I’d need to know more information about how the document was created, by whom, and for what purpose. I’d need to understand the context…is this a stand-alone effort, or part of a bigger effort that also look at other groups?

    One of the uglier developments in our society over the last 20 years has been the “quick-to-anger” syndrome where individuals and groups are “outraged” over events / policies that they know little about. In general, almost everything is more complex and nuanced than how the 24-hour cable networks present them.

  • April 15, 2009 at 5:56 am

    I think that is the greater point, MrMan. I admit there are surely threats, especially from neoNazi/White Supremacists groups that cannot be ignored. But if you have specific threats, point them out. This report is analagous to saying Al Qaeda is out there, so all Muslims are a threat. Neither is useful, and both are inflammatory.

  • April 15, 2009 at 8:15 am

    “This report is analagous to saying Al Qaeda is out there, so all Muslims are a threat. Neither is useful, and both are inflammatory.”

    Again, Neo, you can’t really make that judgement without its context. Was this study actually started by Bush admin? Is it one of a number of analysis being conducted? Or is it a “stand-alone” effort. Also, I don’t think the document implies that all conservatives are a threat. I would use the analogy of in summer of 2001 there was lots of chatter regarding a possible terrorist strike on US soil…recognizing this the US security apparatus should have paid particular attention to evidence of such activities (like Muslims taking flying lessons and not wanting to learn how to take off or land…just fly). If there is increased chatter among right wing groups regarding violence, then it makes sense to increase monitoring of those groups. Realize, there has been a huge increase in purchases of weapons and ammunition among these groups….who exactly are they preparing to fight? Again….I don’t know…and neither do you. Making judgements about these things without having more information is knee-jerk reactionary.

  • April 15, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Liberals should take a moment to think about their attitude on this. If government departments are to be “used” to advance a political agenda supportive of a political faction, all that has happened is, “the accusations of the right are totally confirmed.” And that includes the accusation liberals are out to destroy the Constitution.
    I am confident liberals would deny this & attempt to show how they have always relied on the Constitution when they wanted to demand their rights. Yet it seems, liberals may be more than willing to deny or limit or change based on judicial fiat, the rights of those they oppose.
    People resist tyranny. Despots always advance their agenda, at first, as measures to protect “the people.” Yet in the end, those same despotic types tend to use their positions to take rights away from others, especially anyone who speaks out in opposition to the plans of leftists. Look at what Chavez has done in his short term & what he has planned.
    This DHS report was as politicized as any that has been authored by any government department ever. By lumping a multitude into the report, leftists within DHS has totally policies & discredited DHS & perhaps the current administration. The report uses current events to justify its statements, with no other substantiation, yet we are told its been in the works for over five years.
    This DHS report is a political hit job, perhaps to be used in the future against anyone who stands in opposition to Barack Obama’s plans. While there may be a few successes to accomplish that, the overall plan will fail, as most Americans (right of center & moderates) realize, either they join the right or they too will face the oppression of the fringe element seeking to impose a leftist socialist system of despotism on America.
    Huge taxes, & taxes on those promised no taxes, coming huge price increases for almost everything indirectly taxing especially the poor, corrupt politicians from both sides, insane bail outs of those who failed on their own or overextended on their own, poorly written & poorly enforced government regulations, corrupt financiers, the government selectively enforcing laws or not enforcing laws to pacify politically correct & suspiciously influential special interest groups, and so much more, will mean an end to leftist impositions on Americans.
    The current administration can only use propagandizing so long before truth reveals itself. Media has screwed up. Many average Americans were at those Tea Parties, & now that the media is attacking them, along with numerous organizations mentioned in the DHS hit piece, reveals to huge numbers of people that they are being had big time.
    By attempting to marginalize &/or denigrate Tea Party attendees, the media & administration has finally shown its real purposes look like a plan to radicalize America, by many who have shown a hatred & disdain of America. You cannot call our soldiers murderers, you cannot disparage & attack Americans who have sacrificed much for the betterment of others in the world, & expect those same people to sit back & accept such attacks.
    What did the Tea Parties accomplish? Separately, nothing. Combined with the DHS “hit piece” & mainstream medias vile & vicious attacks on average Americans, and the Tea Parties have finally revealed what appears to be a concentrated effort to destroy America & Americans if they allow the government to continue on its current idiotic path!
    President Obama campaigned with moderate tones. He denied or vacillated when it came to entitlement spending, and on a number of social issues. His actions since in office reveal completely different person than most thought he was based on his campaign speeches & tone.

  • April 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    “Would you include the American Legion among those that physically attack others?”
    So are you going to take this back now since American Legion wasn’t even mentioned in the article????? Huh, huh?

  • April 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    No, since Janet Napolitano felt fit to apologize to all veterans over the report.

  • April 17, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    The facts at issue are simple:

    Promised Delivered
    Bipartisanship Sorry, I won!
    Tax Cut for 95% Huge hike of cigarette tax planned utility tax
    Transparency Pre-Approval of Questions from media
    Transparency Less than 24 hours to consider stimulus bill
    Transparency Behind closed doors review of tax evading Secretary of Health

    Denial of AIG bonuses until last minute when SEC had numerous 8K reports on this dating back to 11/08. Either the Whitehouse lied or they are ignorant of the system tehy are supposed to administer.

    The saddest fact of all though was the denigrating news coverage by the mainstream media of many historic protests on 4/15/09 by American Citizens of all parties. As much as you might disagree with the people, understand the damage being done to free speech here. Right now, your ideology may appear in line with the present rulers in D.C.; but what will happen when you fall out of agreement with them? Are you prepared to have your free speech dissed just as bad?

    Before you let your political emotions run away with you, you had best worry less about the past and get more interested in the present. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Comments are closed.