On Krugman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This bit of news made me ponder again the importance of having Paul Krugman as a NYTimes columnist and public intellectual. Maureen Dowd has been banned from the McCain campaign plane and frankly, I could not care less. Honestly, who even cares what Maureen Dowd writes about anything?

But for nearly 8 years now, Paul Krugman has been writing honestly, intelligently, oftentimes brilliantly, about the important issues of the day. His Cassandra calls on the housing bubble/crisis for years have of course, been vindicated, sadly for the country. But it is not just on that issue that Krugman has illuminated us. He has been the public intellectual who would tell the truth about the Bush Administration, long before anyone in any Media Establishment organ would (he was known as the "Shrill One" for many years.) The Obamabot favorite Andrew "Bell Curve" "Fifth Column" Sullivan would write contemptuously of Paul Krugman for years (often citing the dumbest man on the planet Donald Luskin for support.) Sully's apologies to Krugman should be continuous for years. Don't hold your breath.

So I take a moment to thank Paul Krugman for all his work these past 8 years. To me, his is the most important voice in the public debate. Those of us who believe in Democratic and progressive principles are lucky to have him.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Running Against Republicanism | Dems For HOLC >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Krugman | 52 comments (52 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

He is THE reason I subscribe. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by nulee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:11:21 AM EST

Coverage of Paulson has been dead on.

maureen who? when will the editors realize if they want a gossip columnist there are others with more talent (and other places to put them than on the coveted editorial page).

: Flip Flop? (none / 0) (#48)
by KoolJeffrey on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST

So now that Lord Krugman has signed off, can we finally do something to avoid the next Great Depression?

The bailout plan released yesterday is a lot better than the proposal Henry Paulson first put out -- sufficiently so to be worth passing.
Still blaming "Obamabots" for supporting the plan?

applause (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by artistmate on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST

hear hear

Second the motion (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:15:03 AM EST

There was a time early in the Bush administration when Krugman was literally the ONLY mainstream voice who retained his sanity and called bullsh*t on what was going on, and for that I honor him.

(Krugman also got me to go over to Atrios, when he wrote a column on the Trent Lott fiasco -- until then I hadn't known that there was such a thing as a blog.)

Forgot to say -- speaking of Obamabots (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by lambert on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:21:01 AM EST

This Krugman post is priceless.

Also, if Atrios did not invent "the shrill one" riff, he certainly popularized it. And, amazingly, our irony-free wingers still use the term today!


hey, are you going (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST

to believe what a cat tells you? lol


: On the internet nobody knows you're a cat (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST

One of the reasons I left the Big orange (none / 0) (#42)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:52:19 PM EST

was because the Obamabots skewered Krugman over his health care reporting. Because he favored HRC's with the mandates, the children over there immediately thought he must be a Hillary supporter.


speaking for me too! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST

as usual

Thirded (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM EST

Krugman is the only one in the media (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST

who actually understands the situation with Social Security. The only one!

Something I learned during the primary is that there are a LOT of Democrats who still need to read and understand his teachings on the subject.

Gosh yes! (none / 0) (#12)
by Fabian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST

Too bad they don't have seminars so legislators could go to presentations to learn about about how things really work, or perhaps don't work.

Maybe a competency test for candidates? I'd be for that. I want my reps to have some basic understanding of economics and sociology for a start and the Constitution, of course.


Curious... (none / 0) (#13)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST

Steve, how did you learn about Social Security well enough to decide that Krugman is right, but all of the other media analysts don't get it?

Seriously? I hear this type of thing all the time. Usually from conservatives, who will say things like, "Bush is the only politician who understand the military!" And I always ask, "What is your expertise in the military?" And it half the time it will be "I don't need any, it's just obvious". But clearly not obvious to any other politician. Or, "I'm ex-military". Apparently being a corporal gives you expertise that trumps that of virtually any one else.

While I agree with Krugman on this issueb, he's certainly not unique in his position. And I can certainly not claim that he is the only to get it. He has a position that strongly resonates with me.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST

considering the understanding level of everyone else in the media seems to begin and end with "Social Security is in crisis!!!" it's really not hard to set oneself apart from the masses.

I acquired my knowledge of Social Security in the usual way one acquires knowledge, by reading a number of sources, applying my own understanding of economics, and vetting the various arguments to figure out which ones hold water. It's not that big a deal unless you find the "crisis" groupthink intimidating.

There was a question on Social Security at one of the early debates which made it abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton really understood the issue and the other candidates did not. I think that was when I first started considering becoming a Hillary supporter.


The question? (none / 0) (#22)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM EST

Curious, what was this question, and what was the response that made everything so clear for you? I'm sure that Hillary gets Social Security, I'm just not all that convinced that others don't.

I'm also curious about your economics background? Academic (professor?), professional (CFO?), gov't (are you Alan Greenspan ;-))?

I'm just really intrigued by people who claim to know the truth, when almost everyone else doesn't get it (Note, I'm not saying that you don't know the truth). It really does tend to be a conservative phenomena, so when you see it on a liberal blog, it is quite interesting.

It reminds me of this guy who used to post on sci.math about having disproved Fermat's Last Theorem, and that Wiles was wrong. He had this truth that no other mathematician had. Everyone else was wrong, and he was right. To this day he still believes he is correct. And he honestly believes it. I'm not sure how one gets to that point, and again I'm not saying he's wrong (I'm no expert in elliptical curves), but I do think his thought process is different from others.


I see where you're coming from (none / 0) (#26)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST

but you see, your analogy to the guy who claimed to understand Fermat's Last Theorem better than all the mathematicians is just plain silly. I'm not claiming to understand Social Security better than all the economists and actuaries, I'm claiming to understand it better than all the clowns in the media who can only bleat about a "crisis" because they don't actually understand how the numbers work.

It is truly amazing to me to watch the importance that the pundits attach to the Social Security "crisis" as opposed to the overarching issue of the federal budget deficit. They don't understand that not only is it the latter which drives the former, but that it is literally impossible to fix the former without first addressing the latter.


Fair enough distinction... (none / 0) (#28)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST

I'd missed you were speaking about pundits only. Quite possibly, although even amoung pundits there are some quite sharp ones that know a fair bit of economics. Robert Reich, ex-Secretary of Labor, for example, being one of them.

In any case, maybe you were speaking more of Bill O'Reilly and George Stephanapolous types?

In general though I am weary if virtually everyone holds one opinion, and I hold another (not just a small majority, like those that voted for Bush). It's not necessarily that I'm wrong (see slavery in the South), but if it is fact-driven opinion, I do like to double check my facts.

And again, you may be right. I know a fair bit of economics, but only a little about policy (I studied econometrics). And I did actually TA a course that used Krugman's text on international economics (excellent book BTW). I certainly haven't surveyed the pundits views on SS, but I'm always surprised to hear that one person has a near monopoly on a well reasoned position -- even within the punditsphere.


: If I said what I thought about Robert Reich, (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM EST

it would probably include a string of expletives.

Its absurd to suggest it takes an economist (none / 0) (#31)
by esmense on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST

to understand Social Security. It is a pretty simple concept. Although, I'll admit, the plausible sounding, but not really honest, fear-mongering arguments that conservatives make for privatization -- aimed mostly at younger earners -- may require an economist to debunk (and also to explain the HUGE budget-busting transition costs involved in privatization).

I'm not an economist, I'm a marketing professional. But I have over the last 30 years done quite a bit of marketing for financial institutions. And I can tell you this (something rarely discussed in the Social Security debate) -- the financial services industry has known for some time now that they (Wall Street) might be heading for a crisis when the WWII generation left the scene and the baby boomer generation began to retire. Why? Because the steady wage growth that middle class WWII workers enjoyed very broadly (that provided disposable income for savings, investment and asset accumulation), along with their widespread participation in solid pensions, that had fueled Wall Street growth during most of the post-WWII period, were not enjoyed as broadly by the baby boomers. As early as the late 1980s the financial services industry was projecting that baby boomers would retire with HALF the asset wealth of their parents' generation. (Hell, things may look worse now -- with our negative savings rate and the huge amounts of debt people are carrying into retirement.)

That's the problem privatization is supposed to solve. It's Wall Street's problem, not Social Security's.


Don't need to be an economist... (none / 0) (#38)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST

I agree that you don't need to be an economist to understand SS (although I think you do need to be one to understand the ramification of policy changes and its down stream effect on the US economy and SS itself), BUT the less domain expertise and complex reasoning required to understand it, the more likely it is that there is more than one person that does understand it.

If you claim that it doesn't require domain expertise to understand, and you claim that it's inherently not complicated, but yet claim that virtually all reasonable people (in this case we're actually just talking about pundits, but still many pundits are reasonably bright people) don't get it then I have a problem with either your premise or conclusion.


: On forecasting... (none / 0) (#39)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:59:48 PM EST

And I should even state that no one can do accurate forecasting in general (in some specific cases one can though). Not me, not you, not Krugman, no one can. It's just too difficult. Too many factors, too many things we don't understand, too many variables in the models, too many phenomena that we don't know how to model (or even know exist). So in that regard, even being an economist doesn't win you any points.

bigelephant, (none / 0) (#24)
by cpinva on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST

i'm a cpa, with specific expertise in fed. tax law. i've been in the biz for 30 years. what's your bona fides?

dr. krugman has been one of the few (at times, the only) rational and learned voices, with respect to matters economic, in the media for the past 2 decades. he knows what he's talking about, with respect to Social Security, because I know what i'm talking about, with respect to the issue. i can tell the difference. i doubt you, bigelephant, can.

you, bigelephant, much like your namesake party, haven't got a clue, or just choose to remain intentionally ignorant.

one more thing: NEVER, EVER mention maureen dowd in the same sentence. with dr. krugman. she's a nut job, who should be getting help, not a column in the nyt.


: That's funny... (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST

cpinva, I don't recall addressing my question to you.
Furthermore, what do I not have a clue about?
And c'mon, being a CPA means you can count beans, but it hardly means you necessarily understand policy. Name me two influential CPA's in policy today? I don't mean to be an a**, but I never attacked you nor Steve. I sincerely want to believe why one would actually think that only you get it. Why all these other people, some of whom might actually have levels of understanding on par with a great CPA, don't get it.
But clearly even asking the question to you is tantamout to treason. Hmmm... reminds me of a president I know.
And lastly, you gotta love Krugman and Maureen Dowd. Krugman and Dowd, what a pair on the NYTimes. Do you think Krugman and Dowd would ever get married and have kids. Who would they favor? :-)
Do you seriously think you can bark orders and someone will follow them? Lets keep the discussion civil, and lets not start telling people what to do or what to think. It's what got us in this mess in the first place.

: I think BigElephant is (none / 0) (#43)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST

the typical smarty pants who is using this tack to distract. It is always more clever to challenge the messenger than the message.

I don't watch Bill Maher anymore (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST

but when I did and Krugman was on I think fell in love with him. He is so intelligent and authentic. The combination of the two appears to be from where he draws his strength and those who have said disgusting things about him have likely bothered us more than they have bothered Krugman.

Fourthed (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by MonaL on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM EST

re Krugman.

How anyone on the left could/would take what Sullivan says with any seriousness baffles the heck out of me. He, Arianna and Markos were all Republicans, then Independents, then Democrats before jumping on the Obama train. That alone may be why I can never be an Obamabot.

I know we're supposed to be the big-tent party, but you have to look at some of the late-comers with a bit of suspicion. Fool me once...

Obamabot.. (none / 0) (#16)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST

Mona, that's an absurd reason not to be an Obamabot. A good reason is that it is stupid to be a "bot" when you're a human (unless you actually are a "bot"). A Hillarybot is as stupid as a Palinbot is as stupid as an Obamabot.

But not being a bot because of the ex-alliance of a very small percentage of their supporters is simply absurd.

We really need to change the mindset of so many in the Democratic party. People just aren't thinking hard enough for themselves.


It's danged lot of work (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Fabian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST

to think for yourself. You can't just take what Joe or Josephine Blogger says on faith. You have to investigate on your own and that takes time.

Or you can just decide that anyone who doesn't agree with you is shrill or a shill or a fool. That takes practically no time at all!

This election has caught the attention of people who pay little attention to nuts and bolts of politics and governing. Take a lot of people with an opinion and a shallow understanding of the subject matter and the result is painfully predictable.


You're absolutely right (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MonaL on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST

There never is a good reason to be a 'bot' of any kind.

However, telling people their reasons for their choices are 'absurd' makes you an a** whether you're trying to be one or not.

We really do need to change the mindset of so many in the Democratic Party so that so many of us don't come off sounding like elitists.


: "Absurd" (none / 0) (#44)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:22:39 PM EST

I shouldn't have used such harsh language. My bad on that. I could have made my point with less directed language.

He's a voice of sanity in this looney-tune country (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Pol C on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST

He's been a must-read for years, and I'm particularly glad to have him during this bailout mess. He keeps one from losing one's bearings.

I'm glad to see him on the various NBC channels again. It's pretty clear now that it was Tim Russert who banned him. I guess Little Russ didn't care for the time when Krugman pointedly called him out for his baloney on Social Security.

Thanks BTD (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Lahdee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST

Mr. Krugman indeed deserves our respect and admiration.

I'm an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Melchizedek on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:02:10 AM EST

and I love Krugman. And I especially like it when he criticizes Obama, because Obama needs pushing to the left (esp. health care). Beyond the "Obamabot" phenomenon lies a lot of support from those in the community organizing business (e.g. Giordano), where YOU NEVER turn your candidate into a god. What you value is leadership and the ability to get as much of your agenda accomplished as possible, and you make your best calculation.

Bill Clinton understood that. When Robert Reich asked for a minimum-wage hike in '93 Clinton replied "You have to make me vote for it." In other words, if you don't have popular mobilization, it's not going to fly. Obama's organization is better structured to facilitate that mobilization.

MoDo is a joke. Instead of entertaining the reader, she's re-detains the enterer (to use a typically forced nonsensical MoDo chiasmus, employed at least five times a column).

What Big Tent said. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by oldpro on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST

The Times must've been really startled to discover they'd hired an economist who decided to write about the politics of economics!

Not the only one, but one in a million.

All hail Krugman! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by sancho on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST

There is no one like him in the MSM. Most of the "liberal" MSM columnists are really pretty bad. Hate to think of the NYT w/o him. He first raised the flag for me about what I was already coming to worry about with Obama (the Harry and Louise attacks). And he's helping me get over it now. Glad too he says the bailout could be worse. A truly courageous figure.

Hear, hear! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST

Krugman is a national treasure. Sullivan, a lot of hot air.
Thanks, BTD for pointing this out.

BTD on Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Doc Rock on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST

I say, "Amen, Brother!"

I mean op-ed (none / 0) (#2)
by nulee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST

Krugman... (none / 0) (#10)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST

I am a fan of his, but I do tend to find that he writes out of his comfort zone a bit too much, and when he does so, he sometimes comes off a bit foolish. It reminds me of a quote about Feynman where he was asked what his IQ was by two CalTech students. He responded, "It's 120... but it's all in physics".

When Krugman sticks to trade theory and currency, he's right on. Unfortunately, he, like so many other experts, tries to use his reputation in one area to bring credibility to other areas where he simply doesn't deserve it.

I'm a fan of Krugman, but I do wish he'd focus (although with this current economic crisis, he is the man).

Dowd OTOH is a bit weird. She's really a writer, neither an intellectual nor reporter. I have no problem with her on the NYTimes staff, but one should realize they're reading her piece for fun, not to glean any real useful information.

She's got an opinion.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Fabian on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:41:53 AM EST

[insert pithy quote here]
Reading Dowd is great if you want to find out what Dowd thinks, but I've got a long list of people whose opinions I'm more interested in.


I think this is absurd (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by pluege on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST

that Krugman is an expert in economics means he should avoid speaking of other things...why and for what reason? Why wouldn't opinions on a topic from different frames of reference be a good thing such as Krugman, an expert in economics commenting on politics.

Should the reverse also be true that only economics experts speak of economics? I wouldn't think so.

It is not Krugman's economics expertise that makes him so dead-on on so many topics in and out of economics (there are plenty of economics experts, but few if any with his insight) - it is his reasoning ability, his analytical capability. It would be a tremendous loss for Krugman to confine his insight to only economics.


Exactly (none / 0) (#47)
by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST

I've heard others (and perhaps Krugman himself, although I can't be sure) point to his background in economics as a reason he's able to cut through the bull on so many other issues.

It's partly because of his analytical skills, but also because his professional resume is from academia - not journalism as is the case with nearly all the other columnists out there. So he's not tied to or conditioned to follow "group think" and "conventional wisdom" that affects so many other pundits.

He's not one of the gang of 500, nor does he aspire to be, so he can say clearly that the emperor has no close. Which, I'm sure, makes things uncomfortable for all the Village idiots who are wondering when they can get that fabulous frock in their size.


Should Krugman talk on... (none / 0) (#49)
by BigElephant on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:55:20 PM EST

race relations? How about Head Start? What about software engineering? How about recent advances in neurosurgery? What about coherence in quantum states? Or the effect of nitrates in soil? Or how to fix the Hubble telescope? Or wines that go well with dill?

I think I've found Krugmanbots here. He can speak on any topic and you swoon, yet for the most part I imagine most of you wouldn't know if he was lying his butt off to you.

I just find it funny that you put so much stock in anything he says. I fully support you doing so. It's not my brain that is ruled by Krugman, but please don't walk into debates letting people know that you agree with everything Krugman says.

Lastly, I feel that anyone should have the right to say anything they want about anything. I support Krugman writing about astrology as much as I support Dowd writing about organic chemistry. I just don't have to read either... :-)


You know (none / 0) (#50)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:46:48 AM EST

If you say douchey things, it doesn't make them less douchey to put a little smiley face emoticon at the end. It just makes you a douche who knows how to make an emoticon.


Douchey? (none / 0) (#51)
by BigElephant on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST

What exactly was "douchey"? My appeal to free speech or my appeal to free will? Or was it simply not agreeing with everything you believe? :-P


: Well (none / 0) (#52)
by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST

You entire premise that admiring someone's work makes someone an non-thinking "bot" for one. Or your further suggestion that you are above all that. (I'm sure there is no one you admire, given how superior you are.)
But mostly, because you seem to think you are "cute" when you are really being ... a douche.

Thanks, BTD (none / 0) (#34)
by McKinless on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST

Well said. It's reassuring that others have the same opinion of Krugman I do. Thank God for him--and you.

Krugman rules! (none / 0) (#36)
by pluege on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST

To think of 8 years of bush without the sanity oasis that Krugman offered is truly a horrifying thing. From 2001 through 2005, he was literally the only non-blogger that was readable without repeatedly smashing your head against the wall and screaming into space.

It was an incredibly desolate intellectual time, devoid of rational thought, with republican 'black-is-white-ism' run amok unfettered; where the guardians of our national discourse - US corporate media eagerly jumped on-board the daddy-train and shut down with ridicule, derision, and censure all contrary ideas. We can only hope the society never sees likes of republican/conservative/fundamentalist domination again.

BTD, you will be glad to (none / 0) (#40)
by mg7505 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM EST

hear that the Democratic youth of today are also listening to Krugman. As a judge for high school competitive speech, I've heard Krugman cited quite often. Even better, the kids understand his arguments and present them quite effectively.

Paul Krugman is a treasure, (none / 0) (#41)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST

he brings expertise, experience and intellectual heft to economic and financial issues and his insights offer a thoughtful perspective on a range of issues. His assessment of the Bush tax-cuts and the smoke and mirrors attached to it seemed to underpin his distrust of the administration, including the Iraq war and its run up. Now, Maureen Dowd is a horse of a different color. She has none of the attributes of Professor Krugman, but I do enjoy her slightly out-of-date popular culture references and her clever way with words. While tough to read her incessant diatribes on the Clintons, I have tolerance in that she was among the first and few who tackled Bush policies, particularly the Iraq war, when it was not very popular to do so.

I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#45)
by lucky leftie on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:29:37 PM EST

I have the following Krugman quote displayed where I do most of my work, to remind me that "liberal" is not a dirty word:

"I believe in a relatively equal society, suported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I'm proud of it."

A handful of writers and blogs kept me sane for the past eight years. Krugman is foremost among them.

Sad day (none / 0) (#46)
by KoolJeffrey on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST

Once again, politicians put their political futures ahead of the country. This deal would have forced us to deal with a short-term crisis rather than make it into a long-term one.

Does anyone really think that the majority of those 95 Democrats who voted against the bill were looking at anything more than the poll numbers showing voter dissatisfaction?

Just like with the war, politicians are just going along with action (in this case inaction), that will lead to a long-term crisis for americans.

The GOP really outplayed the Dems on this one. Obama's weak support for this bill will cost him dearly.

I guess Bill Clinton was right in supporting John McCain for president.

On Krugman

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment