... [t]aking on Krugman is not a smrat hing for a public pundit to do. First, Krugman is usually right. Second, Krugman does a great job of defending his positions, usually making his critic look foolish (see Brooks, David.) And now a new reason, Krugman's views get defended by a lot of smart people.

His columns also aren't solely ideologically based, surrounded by a dense cloud of rhetoric, and don't rely, as a right wing talking point does on repetition and echo for propagation. (Or the "rebuttal" of being shouted down and threatened by the flying monkey squadrons.)

When one of the Republicult apologists steps to him -- presumably to take down a prominent liberal -- of course they look assinine.

(a) They're fighting facts-up statements with hot air truthiness which, to belabor the metaphor, does the same thing my steam cleaner does to my deck. Namely, it enhances Krugman's solid facts. (Can you tell I primped it to enjoy the remains of fall weather?)

(b) As the exodus of rats deserting a sinking GOP ship grows, the remaining ones that might amble forward to defend the sacred WH hooey when taking on a smarty pants like Krugman tend to be the true believers rather than the [charitable] less insane [/charitable] bilge drinkers. (Those with any sense have stepped back to reinvent themselves, clean off the slime and get a quick comb-out for '08.)