Replies

Krugman :”What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? (HE'S RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION YOU OVER EDUCATED IDIOT!) Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative. His remarks after last week’s budget deal were a case in point. Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions”

You have to hear all the whining about Obama on the other side for a laugh if nothing else. I wish Krugman was on yesterday's This Week panel, it would have been really funny. Krugman is just a Marxist dressed up by liberals as an economist.

The President Is Missing By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT Link)

More seriously, Obama will be on the counter-offensive on Wednesday with his budget plan.

Obama will be on the counter-offensive on Wednesday with his budget plan.

I can tell you right now that it will be a complete and utter joke. Token cuts of a few billion in obscure programs and a massive set of tax hikes, allegedly "for the wealthy" but in fact for everyone who has a job and makes more than poverty level.

the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions”

Yeah...like the French....

The only war they ever won was in fighting themselves.

Krugman only writes 180 degrees opposite of the truth. If Krugman is ever correct about something, rest assured it was because he made an error.

Moreover, Krugman sees himself as sending signals to the White House. THE NYTimes believes that 0bama reads what they write. So from this perspective we can state that the NYTimes wants 0bama to “Fight.” That’s the left-wing mantra: fight. Anytime the Left sees itself as losing, they want to “fight.”

The reality, however, is that the NYTimes and the modern Left in general “rode the lightning” with 0bama in 2008. 0bama was an unknown (and the news media certainly wasn’t going to dig into his past).

Well, it turns out that 0bama feels differently on lots of issues than what his handlers had him saying during his Campaign. 0bama criticized Bush’s tax cuts, for example, then extended them once in Office.

0bama criticized Gitmo, then kept it open once in Office.

0bama criticized renditions, then kept doing them once in Office.

0bama criticized unilateral wars instead of “diplomacy first,” then bombed Libya instead of talking to Ghadafy.

0bama criticized the Patriot Act, then renewed it as President.

So Krugman and the Left are reaping a bit of what they sowed when they refused to look into 0bama’s background. They elected someone who was and is unknown...and he’s turning out to be a little different from their myth and hopes.

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy.

This is the part I really enjoy: there's no mention of the Democrat-controlled Senate here. It's got to be irksome for Reid and the boys, knowing that Obama's only gonna use them when he needs to shift the blame to somebody -- he's always going to take the credit for himself.