Sort of like a priest who's molesting activities never interfere with sterling Sunday morning sermons on morality. It's silly to claim his political rantings are disconnected from his economics. He's an economist with credentials. That is the foundation for his assertion that Bush tax policies are manifestly evil and shameful.
It is also silly to claim that I am anti-intellectual to wonder (while admittedly not reading his scholarly work) if a man so unglued while discussing the the topic he claims expertise in is capable of real science. I have several degrees in the field, and through all my studying and reading, I never encountered a clown like Krugman.
There is nothing like arguing from an admitted postion of deliberate ignorance. No one claiming to be scientifically educated would criticize another mans academic work without having studied his papers.
Krugman has not, to the best of my knowledge broken man's or God's laws, despite this backhanded slander.
It's silly to claim his political rantings are disconnected from his economics.
It isn't silly since it is the case. You can pick up his academic work, study it and learn from it quite independent up his political arguments. The only difference between Krugman and most other reputable scholars is that he has told you how he voted. Others hide their political views inside the black curtain of the voting booth. Who is the more honest and trustworthy? You can examine Krugman's writings to see whether his work is influence by his biases because he has told you what they are. With others you don't know and so you cannot do that check. Or is your argument a sort of out of sight out of mind kind of thing. So long as I don't know about the mad uncle in the atic I don't have to think about whether there might be one.