Ladies and Gentlemen, even the liberal Paul Krugman:
Long ago — basically when I started writing for the Times — I decided that I would judge the character of politicians by what they say about policy, not how they come across in person. This led me to conclude that George W. Bush was dishonest and dangerous back when everyone was talking about how charming and reasonable he was. It led me to conclude that Colin Powell couldn’t be trusted, back when everyone said his UN speech clinched the case for war. It led me to conclude that John McCain was unprincipled and self-centered, back when everyone said he was a deeply principled maverick. And yes, it led me to conclude that Barack Obama was a good man, but far less progressive than his enthusiastic supporters imagined.
1) How convenient that the party he doesn't identify with is only run by bad people. Definitely judging on character there, guy.
2) While it is regrettable that Obama doesn't completely agree with Kruginator, he shares his party affiliation so he's a good man. He drops the good bombs. He tortures the good torture. He assassinates the good assassinations. He's the good kind of murdering sell out.
This is why I hate everyone now instead of just the right wing. Looking back, I have no fucking idea how it took me this long.
Posts
6 comments:
Ummm, what? I don't see what's objectionable there, particularly since the context and past tense "conclude" suggest Krug was taking about Obama as candidate and very early in the presidency. That's exactly what I think most of us DFHs always saw him as, I know I did.
And did you ever really think Obama would have the authority to cease the Cheney Admin's activities?
I'm not excusing the reality of now, but the truth is I've been depressed ever since Britt Hume announced Ohio was going for Obama on election eve, because the fun was over. Obama was given the White House to absorb all the true fallout from the Bush years, which we're still only beginning to glimpse. Yelling at him for not personally turning back the tide isn't wrong, he is failing, but it seems pointless to me.
At this point, without sarcasm, I'm considering survivalism.
Because he calls him a good man and says he's been proven right despite Obama's continuance of the murder/torture/war regime.
Yea, it might be a reality that we'll never stop the murder. I still don't think that means we can call murders good. Obama says that Afghanistan is the right war and he's escalating that. that's not good. That's bad.
It's also total bullshit that Kruggie actually believe that he's some prescient and incisive judge of character when all he's doing is saying R=good and D=bad. That's the fucking opposite of judging by character.
I agree that the yelling is pointless. Really, I've just done my best to stop caring. I hoped that Obama would change things but he didn't. Now I have no hope. The fifth stage is acceptance.
Hold on. Hit rewind:
" I decided that I would judge the character of politicians by what they say about policy"
If the Professor is being honest (and I don't think he is being completely honest) then what he is arguing is something we should admire. Obama has told us where he stands on policy many times. He doesn't support gay marriage. He thinks we need to stay in Afghanistan for generations. And I can go on and on
I think Obama has academic intelligence, but not political intelligence. Also, he has the weakest Cabinet in generations.
He is the only college educated human being I've seen who thinks that if you ask for less than everyone expects, the bullies on the other side will give you everything you request.
I want to give Krugman the benefit of a doubt. He's been correct about nearly everything since Enron, and that was bloody 8 years ago.
Maybe he figured he couldn't convince his readers that Obama isn't a liberal if he didn't give a sop to them by saying that Obama is a good man despite his policy choices. His readers still want to believe that Obama isn't a career politician and subject to all the usual failings and weaknesses of that breed.
You can certainly dispute his characterization of Obama as a "good man"; it is nothing more than a rather vague generalization without supporting evidence.
OTOH, just where exactly (at least in your excerpt) does he say that he (either Obama or Krugman; unclear antecedent) has "been proven right"? I do not see the word "right" even appearing in the quote, nor any other synonyms such as "correct" or "on target". Do you? Where?
I also don't see his characterizations as based on party. The first group of people is, of course, Republican; that's who was in power when Krugman started writing for the Times.
I am not defending Obama by any means; the bloom was off that rose for me as soon as he announced that Timmeh! Geithner was going to be Treasury Secretary (and has continued to fade due mostly to Obama's war-lust). But I do not think your characterization of Krugman is supported by anything shown here.
"You can certainly dispute his characterization of Obama as a "good man"; it is nothing more than a rather vague generalization without supporting evidence."
And then you go on to say that party affiliation has nothing to do with it. What else besides bias causes one to make assertions of purity without support or equivocation in the face of continued mass murder?
Hey Hey, L B Fucking J.
Post a Comment