Once Again Paul Krugman Shows The Left Can Be As Nutty As The Right

I really don’t take the repeated attempts by Paul Krugman to paint Obama as a Reagan-loving conservative any more seriously than the attempts by tea party supporters to pain Obama as a socialist.

Krugman’s post is another pathetic attempt to resurrect the Obama vs. Clinton campaign long after Hillary Clinton has joined forces with Obama. During the 2008 primary campaign, this Clint0n-supporter did not understand the political benefits of finding some good to mention regarding Reagan’s legacy to woo the Reagan Democrats back to voting Democratic, while also making clear his vast differences in opinion with Reagan. Krugman still does not understand Obama. I imagine he is helping to keep up his readership among the PUMA’s.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Ralph says:

    Krugman has a point, and so do you.
    Bottom line: I will vote for Obama and his Congressional associates any time they are up for re-election. For the rest, I throw up my hands. It makes my brain hurt to try to figure out why Obama so often appears weak, and why so often gives in to Republicanism.
    I don’t think anyone really understands Barack Obama.

  2. 2
    John says:

    Agree with your point about Obama’s campaign statements re Reagan, but talk about your false equivalencies. Really, look at your title: Are you kidding me?

    The Right goes on about Kenyan presidents, death panels, secession, replenishing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, climate denial and creationism in science classrooms. And this is all pretty standard lingo nowadays, no need to save it for behind closed doors anymore. Krugman, on the other hand, argues that Obama misstates and misunderstands FDR and the lessons from the Depression, and so failed to address our own crisis, then Krugman backs up his argument. And here you are, throwing flags over the field, proclaiming that these are offsetting penalties.

    Some disagree with Krugman, and validly. I get that, it’s good. But the association you draw shows utter lack of critical thinking, sorry. We see this a lot now, where people can no longer discern between political comment and calumny, and our traditionally strong civic institutions are suffering for it. It truly is nutty.

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:


    You look quite ridiculous accusing someone of an utter lack of critical thinking when you post an illogical comment such as this. You contradict yourself, show a lack of understanding of Krugman’s posts, and then distort what I am saying with your straw man attacks. Yes, there is a problem of personal attacks replacing serious political comment. This is what I am criticizing Krugman for, and this is what you also wound up doing.

    Krugman has been pushing his claim that Obama is virtually a Reaganeaque conservative in many posts, some of which I have responded to in the past. This claim, and the related claims from some on the far left that Obama is as bad as Bush, are as absurd as the right wing claim that Obama is a socialist. People on the right make all the false claims you mentioned and more–as I have frequently noted on this blog. It is not a matter of who makes more nutty assertions or a matter of offsetting penalties. The claim that Obama is a conservative is just as nutty. Despite your attempts to distort my post, nowhere did I claim that the left makes as many absurd claims, or that one offsets the others. I am not going to criticize all the absurd arguments coming from the right and just ignore absurd arguments coming from the left.

    Krugman did nothing to prove his point regarding Obama believing right wing storylines. He attacked something which Obama supposedly said at a closed meeting, meaning we have no way to verify what exactly Obama said. Considering that Krugman has a history of distorting statements from Obama (such as with Reagan–which you conceded is true) we cannot base an attack on Obama based upon something Krugman claims he said.

    Even if this is true, at worst we have a case of Obama being wrong on a minor historical point which Krugman twists to make it appear far more meaningful that it is. This says nothing about Obama’s actual policies. Krugman continues to oppose Obama based upon Obama’s true statements that Reagan was a transformational president. Krugman ignores the fact that Obama made it clear that he opposed Reagan’s ideas. Obama also referred to both JFK and FDR as also being transformational presidents. He has also repeated this Clinton campaign attack while ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton has referred to Reagan as one of our greatest presidents.

    Krugman’s comments on FDR did nothing to support his argument so he attempted to back up his ongoing attack line of Obama following the right wing by dragging up the old Reagan argument. As his Reagan attack line is a phony attack, it does nothing to support his repeated claims, including in this post, that Obama follows a right wing storyline.

  4. 4
    Johnee says:

    Great site! Yeah Krugman is just another joker in a long line of left and right jokers
    First off, as an independent thinker I find the whole group think, left vs right, “their side has more nuts than ours” dogma very amusing. Facts are facts and truth is truth. If one has any intellectual honesty,opinions should be formed according to issue not idealogical dogma.
    Any rational observer immediately notices that both the left and the right have fools that accuse each other of EXACTLY the same thing; “liars”, “fascists”, “racists”, “nuts”, “extremists” are terms that are uttered frequently by both sides.
    Does this mean I’m saying that both sides are equivalent on every issue with their nuttery? Hell no! I know this pisses off both my conservative and liberal friends to no end, but each side dominates a particular niche of society, culture, and politics when it comes to looniness.  For instance:
    1) Right wing conservatives are dominated by people that think evolution is a myth and “creationism” should be given equal time in the classroom
    2) College campuses are dominated by left wing professors ( and their students) that think Marxism is a great thing and America is an evil capitalist nation.
    3)The bible belt is dominated by right wing conservatives that think homosexuality is evil and anti- sodomy laws should be put back on the books. ( every opinion poll confirms this )
    4) The progressive left is dominated by people that annoyingly practice selective outrage. For example, they will not hesitate to insult, criticize, or demean the religious right, but will not apply that same critique to a 3rd world intolerant culture ( that murders their women and gays), because they don’t want to be seem intolerant of Muslims. ( This is so frustratingly inconsistent and contradictory that as a result, this is my biggest pet peve with the left )

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    While there are some on the left who fit your description, you are talking about a small minority. Most on the left are capitalists, not Marxists, and most on the left are outraged by Muslim fundamentalism. What you are really talking about. for the most part, is not the actual left but a distorted version of the left spread by the right with their straw man attacks.

    On the other hand, the conservative movement has done quite a job of chasing away people who don’t share their extremist beliefs.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Group think based upon my side is right the other side is wrong is of course bad. This includes the knee jerk reaction to the mere mention of Reagan’s name by some on the left.

    On the other hand, there is some basis for supporting a set of beliefs from one side as opposed to taking every issue by itself when fundamental beliefs are involved. I’ll support liberal viewpoints as opposed to conservative viewpoints when they line up against the fundamental differences in worldview and ideology between left and right: liberal support for individual liberty versus conservative support for increased restrictions on the rights of the individual (despite their rhetoric favoring small governement), liberal support for a market economy versus conservative support for plutocracy, and liberal support for basing positions based upon facts and respecting the value of science as opposed to the right’s rejection of facts which contradict their ideological or religious biases.

    Of course not every issues lines up clearly based upon these distinctions, and these differences do not apply to all liberals and all conservatives.

  7. 7
    John says:

    Thanks for your reply. I hadn’t a chance to respond.
    I think you mischaracterize Krugman, whom I’ve never seen call Obama a conservative, but since before the inauguration has written a consistent body of comment urging the president to confront the Reagan legacy of flimflam policy assumptions that for some reason still dominates Washington. Seeing how things turned out, Krugman does not need me to defend him.
    But the reason I wrote in the first place was that horrible banner headline. Beneath it, you might have written Paradise Lost or Common Sense or any thoughtful and impeccably nuanced argument you like, even an unanswerable masterpiece to make Krugman himself recant and weep with remorse, but the only take away is “Liberal blog brands Krugman as nutty as right extremists.” That is the money line of this article. That’s what was picked up across the Internet. The kooks and Malkinites who thrive on counting coup merely browse what’s underneath it wearing self-satisfied smirks and file the useful tidbit for later.
    It’s just lazy and doesn’t seem to befit your thinking. You work at writing a blog, so I know you value the power of words, and I figure something like this will matter to you.
    Unless it’s to be controversial and drive traffic. That it does that well, I assume.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Personally I think it makes more sense to respond to the full post as opposed to the title alone, especially when twisting the title to say something more than it says.

Leave a comment