Replies

Its mazing how much the defense of Bush on this issues echoes the Dems defense of the Clintons.

1) Remember the old "they lost money" dodge? Apparently, it's only coruption or a crime if you profit regardless of whether your a Dem or a Rep. Its laugable to read a critique of Krugman asking whether Bush profited from the sale--the same kind of defense used so often for Bill and Hillary!

2) "These activities were raised as during his sucessful Gubernatorial campaign". Apparently if your dirty laundry has been aired once in a state-wide election it's 'old news' that can't ever be used against you again regardless of how much current events make it relevant. We heard this kind of defense endlessly over both Whitewater and Clinton's affairs. "We knew all this when he was re-elected in 92" they chimed.

3) Ad-hominem attacks. Krugman is a squishy liberal and therefore we can reject everything he says as a lie. This type of attack was regularly repeated by the "right wing conspiracy" pundits on the left during Clinton's impeachment and the SP investigations.

What does this tell you? Simply this: Human beings are facinating psychological specimens who will go to extrodinary lengths to avoid having to re-assess their beliefs. "I like Bush, he's a good guy who agrees with me" so I'll stick my head in the sand or make up lame counter-arguments to hide from myself from the fact that he's not a straight-arrow. It's amazing what partisanship can do!

Get a clue. If you want to discuss the specific allegations, have at it. They have been thoroughly aired before, investigated, and there is nothing to them.

The fact that Krugman raised them again, spun them in a way to make look Bush responsible for the wrongdoing in some corporations today, and interjected these tired allegations into the news cycle was a cheap attack by him.

You bet your ass we're going to berate him for it.

"...go to extrodinary [sic] lengths to avoid having to re-assess their beliefs."

Yes, people do develop emotional linkages which preclude the light of fact, reason, reality chasing away the cockroaches of wrong beliefs. Islamicists, Nazis, Trotzkyites, Maoists...history is replete with examples. Twas ever thus.

Like many Freepers, after much education and many years of observation, I KNOW that the Clintons are scum. This is as sure as gravity and predicated on exhaustively researched FACTS. Since that pattern of fact is real and inalterable, the remaining liberal defenders of the Clintons fall in two groups: The deceived and the deliberate deceivers. Krugman is still portraying them positively. He is therefore suspect. His NYT piece is compromised by the usual leftist selective reporting.

Is the response of a writer to the Clintons then a litmus test? You bet.

Is your implication that Bush is no better than his predecessor? This is demonstrably false. While many of us would prefer a rigorous Constitutionalist President, the hand we have been dealt is politically in a different galaxy from Clinton/Gore. The latter would have fit in nicely at the Leningrad State University of the 1970's when I was there. What would Gore have done with Kyoto, the ICC, the Taliban, and most critically...court appointments?

Yes, I am dismayed by the Trent Lottism of the Pubbies in the District of Corruption, but I am still grateful for Bush. We serve ourselves poorly not to focus on the opposition: Liberals of every stripe. Keep attacking Bush and get Bubbette Rex.

Krugman is not just a 'squishy liberal.' He is a liar and an enemy of freedom. Both deceived and a deceiver.

Blessings on Freepers Everywhere.