[pgyanke]

Anyone who loves this country has to be saddened.

That's not the only qualification! Tom Daschle is saddened too!

[CatoRenasci]

Joel Feinberg Bump -- once did a philosophy seminar looking at his Doing and Deserving.

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, but it doesn't explain why Krugman hates Bush. One is left to surmise that it is because Krugman is a socialist. But the interesting thing about it is that Bush himself is reasonably center or the road politically.

For whatever reason, the far Left is out in the open and in attack mode.

[LiteKeeper]

read later - PHILOSOPHY

[Always Right]

I never realized there were rational Nadar supporters.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this. Even more reprehensible than Krugman are the phoney conservatives on FR who post Krugman's lies/hatred of GW posing them as legitimate news.

[Grampa Dave]

fyi

[Grampa Dave]

A little insight to the hatred of Krugman for GW.

How many of Krugman's lies are posted here on FR by those who hate GW more than Krugman and disguised as so called conservatism.

[KC_Conspirator]

Krugman is a despicable Bush-hater. This author has it right - Krugman has blamed everything down to the pebble in his shoe on Bush. That is not logical or thoughtful at all. The only reason he does this is because of his Bush-hatred.

[Grampa Dave]

Another look at the lunacy of Krugman.

[Roscoe Karns]

bump

[Southack]

"Krugman's "economic" columns consist, in the main, of criticisms of President Bush's policies. The recent blackout, for example, was President Bush's fault. The California electricity crisis was President Bush's fault. Everything that happens in Iraq (or the Middle East generally) is President Bush's fault."

This is what most of the "news" media has devolved into. They take each day's news and spin that news such that everything bad is blamed upon Conservatives.

There is no honest presentation of mere facts, sans commentary and spin, in most of today's media.

[Akira]

Very good article from none other than a local Naderite.

[OESY]

A very thoughtful analysis. NY Times' columnist Krugman deserved evisceration. I admit to being a so-called "Clinton Hater," but always characterized myself as a "Clinton Corruption Hater," a distinction with a difference: Unpresidential Behavior, not limited to the sexual harassment of young employees, but rather focused on the performance of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the U.S. In other words, my opposition was not policy-driven.

Clinton was entitled to enact his agenda and make appointments when he could garner legislative support. That's the democratic process and it should be revered and protected as sacrosanct.

I don't get that same warm and fuzzy reassurance from Bush Haters. But is it weren't for well publicized voter fraud, the Gore recount shenanigans, the Torricelli Hail-Mary maneuver, and countless examples of dishonest rhetoric -- all separate from misplaced policy priorities, Republicans wouldn't have fared as well as they have in recent years.

[Political Junkie Too]

I read newspapers and magazines (see, e.g., Jonathan Chait, "The Case for Bush Hatred," in a recent issue of The New Republic); I watch public-affairs programs on television (cable as well as network); I visit Internet websites (including blogs); and I talk to people (friends, colleagues, students, neighbors). The depth and breadth of animosity toward President Bush astounds me.

Maybe he should expand his circle of contacts a bit. A majority of voting Americans don't hate President Bush (if polls are to be believed).

-PJ

[sauropod]

read later

[taxcontrol]

I must take exception to the position that Hate is bad. Hate is an emotion. A strong and powerful emotion. But emotions are not of themselves good or bad.

Peoples actions or what they do in response to emotion is either good or bad. For example, lets take a view from the left - environmental activist. Someone who hates the distruction of the environment can react in many ways. A bad way would be to burn down peoples houses (ELF) a good way would be to try and educate others and sell your ideas in the public square.

I feel that the author starts with some very fundamental assumptions and glosses over them, accepting them as truths without taking a hard look at what he is espousing.

For example-
"And well we should. Hatred is a vile and destructive emotion,..."

Wait a minute. I'm not going to be lead down this path. Hate is a strong emotion, but actions are good or bad, not feelings.

Here is another one, "Hatred is not one of the seven deadly sins, but it should be." The seven deadly sins are based in action - ok, maybe sloth is based upon INACTION, but you get my point. Actions that are harmful to either self or others.

Further, the author discribes the 4 signs of hate in terms that are exclusively used to discribed people. Now I understand the intent of the article. However, one can hate things instead of people.

The author goes on and says "Anyone who loves this country has to be saddened." Sir, I would advise you to reconsider such comments. It was hate - in particualar, hatred of British rule that spawned and created this country. Remember the Boston Massacre? The stamp act? The tea-party? Acts of violence that came from the hot flames of hatred and dissent.

Sir the politics of personnal distruction were used to fan the flames of hate and rebellion. It was the politics of personnal distruction that ran tax collectors out of town tarred and feathered for collecting the King's taxes.

And I further submit that without that hatred, we would still be eating tea and crumpets, subjects not citizens, and beholding to the crown of England.

I for one am greatefull for such hate and the actions that resulted.

[Sabertooth]

It started with the Egyptians.

[lainde]

bttt

[an amused spectator]

It might be objected that for every Bush-hater like Krugman, there is (or was) a Clinton-hater.

I don't recall many Clinton-haters having "journalism" positions at major newspapers and television networks during the Clinton administration. ;-)