home

Sullivan, Krugman and Kristol

By Ethan Brown, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 05:23:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Andrew Sullivan is keeping mum about his meeting with the president-elect but he couldn't resist a little swipe at Paul Krugman.

Obama's post-partisanism, Sullivan writes is a "challenge...as real for a Krugman as for a Kristol." Please.

Bill Kristol is a shallow, error-prone propagandist behind just about everything awful in our politics, from the Iraq invasion to Sarah Palin. Krugman, conversely, is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been pretty prescient on everything from the real estate crash to the comeback of Keynesian economics. [More...]

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Krugman and Kristol are not flip sides of some partisan coin in Andrew Sullivan's imagination. Indeed, Krugman and Kristol should not be described as "left" or "right" but right--and always, always wrong.

< Newsweek's "Insights" Into Boumediene And Eisentrager | Mike Barnicle On "Journalism" And "Blogging" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sullivan, Krugman and Kristol | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well wrong or not (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    Sullivan, who I am no fan of, is correct in saying that Obama's post-partisanship is hard to swallow for any partisan Left or Right. His comment doesn't go to who is correct and who isn't.

    Obviously a person like me thinks Krugman comes down on the side of being right. But in thinking so does not make Obama's post-partisanship any more palatable for Kristol as it does for myself or Krugman. Bottomline is all partisans be them Krugman, Kristol, or myself and countless others are not happy about Obama's post-partisanship. Who is on the right side of being right has nothing to do with it.

    post partisan should not (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    mean uncritical. Obama's toleration of the view of people like Warren et. al. is really irksome.

    [ Parent ]
    And if post-partisan means (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    accepting bigotry, misogyny, and more by the likes of Warren -- thanks, but I'll stay proudly partisan.

    [ Parent ]
    some issues just don't lend themselves (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:33:31 PM EST
    to post-partisanship.  Racism is one of those and is why you don't see Obama "reaching out" to find common ground" with racists.

    It's too bad that anti-gay bigotry isn't viewed in that same light by Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    Being one who is proudly partisan and is very critical of Obama even before he won the nomination I couldn't agree on being critical more. Unfortunately  Warren is just a window into the future with Mr. Obama imo.

    [ Parent ]
    But on Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:56:56 PM EST
    Is "partisan" really an accurate description?

    It's not the term I would use.  Krugman is no rah-rah Democrat.  Although there can be little doubt that he pulls the good guys' lever in the polling place, he criticizes Democratic Party leadership figures on a fairly regular basis.  

    I would call him an independent thinker who happens to have noticed the awfulness of Republicans and consequent need to rally to Democrats to correct GOP abuses.

    [ Parent ]

    It isn't hard for me to swallow at all (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    It is hard for me to understand the genius of it  when it comes down to getting things DONE that will make the world a better place for EVERYONE instead of just the elites of whatever they are the elite of.  Perhaps I'm missing something.

    [ Parent ]
    If I just read Team of Rivals (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    I'm certain I'll get it.  All we need is a wee civil war and everyone will be so distracted by real bloodshed and heartache on their doorsteps that they will stop gay bashing and practicing racism and misogyny.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at it this way, MT. If you read (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:05:54 AM EST
    Team of Rivals, you'll miss the entire first term.  1000 pages.

    [ Parent ]
    Post Partisan (none / 0) (#28)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:05:33 PM EST
    I'm just like Obama. I will give equal time to those who are right, and those who are disastrously wrong, and after all that time is spent, I'll make my decision. Can't be right all the time, and I'm going to make sure it stays that way.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheney asks Jim Lehrer if he saw the (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cpa1 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    economic disaster coming, as his defense, and mamby pamba Jim said I'm not the president or the vice president.

    Well, I saw the debacle coming and so did many of us, especially Paul Krugman and he belted it out day after day.

    What is going on now, had to happen and it was evident that the chickens would come home to roost after the passage of the Bush tax cuts.  Where the wealthiest used to pay thre times what the rate the average American paid, now thy are paying 1/3.

    Giving the wealthiest American so much money out of the tax rolls that are necessary to run this country was INSANe and it allowed Wall Street to invent pyramid schemes to sell and they sure did!

    Lehrer is getting tougher now but he should be clobbering that SOB.

    Cheney was full of it. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Fabian on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    His "Gee, shucks - no idea why the economic disaster happened on our watch!" answer might fool anyone who didn't know why it happened and why it happened when it did.  Anyone who has a clue (including Lehrer) knows why it did and that numerous Bush administration policies enabled and encouraged the collapse.

    Both Cheney and Bush were playing to the media.  "We worked hard, we did our job, made a few mistakes that weren't all that significant.  Love ya, you've been a great electorate - so long!".

    [ Parent ]

    my friend the bankruptcy lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    told me this was coming over 2 years ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't beleive Obama had a meeting (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    with Andrew Sullivan.  What next? Ann Coulter?

    Reaching out! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Fabian on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    Gotta reach out!

    Actually, he's stroking the media in hopes that he keep his Media Darling status through 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    Note to commenters (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:02:29 PM EST
    Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed on this site. A comment calling Sullivan various names has been deleted.

    Even a broken clock... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Pacific John on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    He happens to be exactly correct this one time. Obama's theory of transcending partisan differences treats all sides as credible. That's why back in the era of There is No Crisis, when Dems found the spine to take an uncompromising stand against Bush's attempt to start privatizing Social Security, Obama took so much guff for rejecting the theory of moral contrast.

    Then the blogosphere fell in love.

    And I'm sure we've all noticed, the new administration put Social Security back in play for no good reason. The message is clear: responsible stewards and opponents who want to dismantle socialism both have valid viewpoints. Middle ground, the highest virtue, evidently, can be found.

    It saddens me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:23:50 PM EST
    that people like Sullivan, who in my opinion used hate mongering toward the Clintons, is given any credence by any democrat, let alone the president elect.  Who next?  Chris Matthews?  And imo, Sully is as much as a misogynistic type as Matthews.

    I honestly don't like that Obama gives any credence to the likes of Kristol either.  But at least it makes sense to me in that Kristol has a lot of influence with neo cons.  

    Oh well, Obama has the right to do these little meetings. I just don't get it.

    his writings about the war (none / 0) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    are far worse than anything he said about Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I would love for Sullivan, and Obama for (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    that matter to answer this: if I think torture is wrong and someone else thinks it's okay, where is our "common area of agreement?"

    If I think women have the right to make their own independent reproductive choices, and someone else does not, where is our "common area of agreement?"

    If I think this country must find a way to implement universal health care, and others think that is insane, where is our "common area of agreement?"

    If I believe that the government does not have an unqualified right to spy on anyone it wants to, and someone else takes the "if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" where is our "common area of agreement?"

    Seems to me that "common area of agreement" is the place where conviction and principle often turn to mush, where hot cools to lukewarm, where focused fades to blurry, where substance disintegrates into fluff.  Where we lose our hold on what is really important.

    Maybe Sullivan is too entranced by the messenger to grasp that the message is lacking in the kinds of things that help generate real change, but as I said on this thread in one of its previous incarnations, I have not spent years exercising my brain and coming to some essential truths only to suffer the political equivalent of a lobotomy.

    Can't do it.

    I will try. (none / 0) (#67)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    Since my views tend toward the center, I straddle some of these fences all the time.

    if I think torture is wrong and someone else thinks it's okay, where is our "common area of agreement?" Torture is wrong full stop.  If there is any common area to be found, it's to get further agreement on what is torture vs "enhanced interrogation" (a phrase I find odious).  Everyone will say they don't believe in torture but where the rubber meets the road is the definition.  That is where work can be done to bring the two sides closer together towards ending torture."

    If I think women have the right to make their own independent reproductive choices, and someone else does not, where is our "common area of agreement?"  Here, the common area of agreement is working on the underlying causes of unwanted pregnancies.  I think the "pro-life" group loves to paint the "pro-choice" group as pro-abortion when that is not the case.  Both sides can agree that we want fewer unwanted pregnancies, which will of course lead to fewer abortions.  Education, support for single parents, etc. are common areas of agreement.

    If I think this country must find a way to implement universal health care, and others think that is insane, where is our "common area of agreement?" The common area here are stepping stones to UHC such as mandatory coverage for children.  I recognize for some it's an all or nothing deal, but as I continue to listen to the debate between two physicians in my family--one for UHC, one completely against--both of whom I know believe they have the patients' best interests at heart, I can see room for more nuance.

    If I believe that the government does not have an unqualified right to spy on anyone it wants to, and someone else takes the "if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" where is our "common area of agreement?"  I don't have an answer here...sorry.  I think the constitution is clear here even though our leaders keep choosing to ignore it.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the response. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    I would respond as follows:

    Torture is wrong full stop.  If there is any common area to be found, it's to get further agreement on what is torture vs "enhanced interrogation" (a phrase I find odious).  Everyone will say they don't believe in torture but where the rubber meets the road is the definition.  That is where work can be done to bring the two sides closer together towards ending torture.

    Once you engage in the battle of definitions, the war is pretty much lost, since definitions are inherently subjective and will change as power shifts.  This is not to say that the signatories to the Geneva Conventions could not modify them, too, but at least it would be on an international basis, and would represent a sort of moral and ethical benchmark.  I think people get too hung up on wanting to define torture ("okay, so keeping someone awake for 24 hours is not torture, but 24 hours and one second crosses the line"), and looking for ways to be able to keep doing it, and I'm really not so sure it's for the purpose of obtaining information as much as it is because the people engaging in it actually enjoy it.  

    Here, the common area of agreement is working on the underlying causes of unwanted pregnancies.  I think the "pro-life" group loves to paint the "pro-choice" group as pro-abortion when that is not the case.  Both sides can agree that we want fewer unwanted pregnancies, which will of course lead to fewer abortions.  Education, support for single parents, etc. are common areas of agreement.

    Even if we can agree on the causes of unwanted or unintended pregnancies, that doesn't change my belief in the inherent right of women to make their own reproductive decisions.  Sure, make birth control more available, make education a priority - do all the things that will help reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy - but recognize that even if all those efforts are undertaken, it will not totally eliminate the unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, and women will still have to have the right to make the choices they believe are best for them.

    The common area here are stepping stones to UHC such as mandatory coverage for children.  I recognize for some it's an all or nothing deal, but as I continue to listen to the debate between two physicians in my family--one for UHC, one completely against--both of whom I know believe they have the patients' best interests at heart, I can see room for more nuance.

    I could be way off here, but I think that until you have a pool that includes everyone, you are just leaving the door open for insurance companies to pass the costs of mandated care on to those who have it by choice.  

    There is a crying need for massive reform and regulation of the insurance industry, a need that was highlighted by the recent decision in NY about United Health Care, which was found to be basing its reimbursement rates for out-of-network care on the reasonable and customary charges determined by a data company that United owned.  So, you go to an out-of-network doctor who charges you $1,000 for a procedure.  United is obligated to pay 80% of reasonable and customary.  You get a notice that reasonable and customary has been determined to be $500.00, so they will pay $400 and you are stuck with $600.  The company that United owns just saved United from having to pay out a larger amount - nifty arrangement, huh?

    What we often hear is that if no one is willing to budge on their position, then nothing gets done and that's not good either.  Well, that's where the benefit of being the party in power comes into play.  If you aren't going to take as much advantage as you can of being in power - the Republicans sure know how to do that! - and take the opportunity to implement policies and programs whose results will be tangible proof of the rightness of one's beliefs, what's the point of having it?

    [ Parent ]

    For the third time (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    Sully who?

    Sullivan... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Ethan Brown on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    Didn't mean to turn this into a debate on the merits of Sullivan...Just wanted to convey the ridiculousness of equating Kristol and Krugman. I'm also tired of the constant championing of post-partisanism. Put me in the Barney Frank"Post Partisan Depression" category:

    thinkprogress.org/2008/12/22/post-partisan-depression/

    You'll find much agreement here (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    on that point.

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman and the deficit (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:51:04 PM EST
    I know you guys love Krugman, but his ideas of huge spending deficits, up to 4T, is beginning to scare me. Democrat Laffer curve?  How do we ever get out of it?  We all know we can't take away any programs once they are begun.  How do we ever make up those kinds ofdeficits?  I worry about what I am saddling my grandkids with.  

    Please tell me this will be ok.  Tell me how the US will move forward with some big industry, or something, in coming years, to wipe out these huge debts.

    The National Debt (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:03:44 PM EST
    went out of control beginning with Ronald Reagan. There is no way that added spending can get it under control. The "problem solvers" view the economy and the national debt as separate problems when they are amazingly intertwined. They want to add to the Debt problem in an attempt to solve the economic problem. It's a little like going out to dinner at a fancy restaurant because you couldn't pay your electric bill.

    Spending money you don't have to solve your financial problems is exactly what we are doing now to try and solve the Bush disaster. It ignores the first rule of holes.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, so whose services (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:06:03 PM EST
    are you going to cut at the precipice of a recession?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, we'd had it with Bush and now we're makin (none / 0) (#59)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:42:01 AM EST
    it hugely bigger.  When will it end?  No programs can ever be cut, so we must find another way to produce more and create more money.  How?  

    [ Parent ]
    The difference (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:39:38 PM EST
    is that Republicans claim that tax cuts are good policy in both good times and bad, while we are certainly not arguing that deficit spending is a good idea except right now, when we have a recession that we need to get out of as soon as possible.

    Tax revenues are going to be miniscule for the duration of the recession, which means that the sooner we get out of it, the sooner we can get the budget balanced.

    [ Parent ]

    But how will we ever get out? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:40:16 AM EST
    Isn't that the question posed?  

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    I believe the question posed was how we are ever going to solve the deficit.  In terms of getting out of the recession, while it assuredly won't be simple, the prescription is the basic Keynesian concept of stimulating the economy through government spending.

    Understand that the difference between us and the Republicans is that once the economy has recovered, we will not be saying, "Hey, I bet if the government spends even more we can stimulate the economy that much more!"

    [ Parent ]

    Why not let the people stimulate the economy? (none / 0) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    How will government scale back, once it has set up all the new programs?  

    [ Parent ]
    McArdle is essentially promoting Hooverism (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:59:27 PM EST
    and seems to have been taken in by some warmed-over Republican propaganda from the 1980s.

    [ Parent ]
    Irony? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ricosuave on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    Krugman's early book Peddling Prosperity was a non-partisan excoriation of both parties' economic snake oil.  He took the Republicans to task for "supply-side" economics in the first half of the book, and then spent the second half of the book slamming Democratic talk of "international competetiveness."

    I think that supply-side economics has been more central to Republican mythology than competetiveness has been to Democrats, but the book was nowhere near as one-sided as anything Kristol has ever written.

    And around the same time he supposedly passed up requests to join the Clinton administration.

    I guess Krugman was and early adopter of post-partisanism.  Pre-post-partisan?  Post-Partisan when Post-Partisan wasn't cool?

    competence (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    Just because Krugman is more competent than Kristol doesn't necessarily make him any less of a partisan.

    An important distinction (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:52:00 PM EST
    is that Kristol is a tool. He has no shame. There are times when talking points have changed that he has been acrobatic in trying to keep up with those changes.

    Krugman is no one's tool.

    [ Parent ]

    But as another poster (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    commented, Krugman has a history of being non-partisan---attacking faulty Democratic economic theories as well as Republican.
    It's not his fault that the Republican theories are more pernicious, and have been followed more closely. It's the fault of hacks like Kristol and Sully,Laffer and Luskin, and their followers.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh Please (none / 0) (#60)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:44:19 AM EST
    Krugman couldn't be any more far left.  He wasn't always like that, but he sure is now.  We look like fools when we try to claim otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:26:36 AM EST
    Krugman is not far left.


    [ Parent ]
    Krugman will get more attention than Sully will. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by AX10 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    Krugman and Obama are much closer than Obama and Sullivan ever will be.

    Krugman is more friendly towards "free" trade than most Democrats.  Did Sullivan know this?
    There is something about Andy Sullivan that makes my skin crawl.

    To elaborate on blogname's post, I have to ask, based upon Sullivan's unsavory history, perhaps he is sexually attracted to Obama.  Seeing that Sullivan is still hell bent on supply side economics, I do not see why he would support Obama.
    To compare Kristol to Krugman is just vile!

    See this http://crooksandliars.com/2008/09/20/naomi-klein-saves-the-day-on-real-time-andrew-sullivan-has-no-c lue

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:00:17 AM EST
    That's a pretty disgusting and homophobic thing to say.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not consider it homophobic. (none / 0) (#54)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:07:21 AM EST
    Just looking at Sullivan's past.  I do not appreciate him preaching morality to us either.

    For the record, I am not a fan of PC.

    [ Parent ]

    Integrity? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    One of the many faults I see with journalists today is this "friendship" with politicians. They all want to be buddies so they can get in on the story. Didn't they learn anything from the Bush years? It was unbelievable how they were manipulated and then thrown under the bus by the Bush administration. Now they're standing in line to get the same treatment fromm the Obama team.

    They are thinking (none / 0) (#75)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    about their careers.  Name dropping might be seen as annoying and ostentatious in some places, but in the media, having access to the elite and powerful is an advantage over the less fortunate.

    Is access necessary for journalism?  Doubt it.  But it sure seems to be valuable for news readers and pundits.

    [ Parent ]

    Dr. Krugman and Mr. Kristol (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    bring different perspectives  and resources to discussion and their writings reflect their respective experiences.   Dr. Krugman,  a University professor, engages in intellectually rigorous pursuits and seeks new truths.  Mr. Kristol is associated with a right-wing institute intended to advance a predetermined point of view that may or may not be  correct.  While we do not know the reason that Dr. Krugman did not attend the meeting with Obama/ Sullivan et al., there is value to keeping an arm's length from policies and people to be reviewed.   It is easy to become co-opted, a part of any charm offensive.

    Excellent comment. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    Some people crave that access.  Krugman has never shown any indication he does or he would find great value in that access.  I think his work speaks for itself.

    [ Parent ]
    Right-O (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    In my humble opinion, Pres-Elect Obama probably failed Dr. Krugman's vetting standards for granting interviews. He also, probably didn't get his request to Paul within the requisite 60 day window.

    I mean, let's face it, Mr. Krugman is "real," while Mr. Obama is a composite for whatever people want him to be. While Paul is calculating how to dig out, Barack is calculating how to "reach out."

    Who does he think he is,anyway, The President??

    lol

    [ Parent ]

    and andrew sullivan is? (none / 0) (#2)
    by blogname on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:14:02 PM EST
    Well, he certainly has this terrible fascination with Obama that makes it difficult to take him seriously -- not that I ever took him too seriously in the past. But it seems as if he went over the deep end with his adoration -- edit: worship -- of Obama....But I'm glad to see it paid off with one of the "meet the president" luncheons that Obama keeps hosting. Good for him.

    blogname, your last comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:01:01 PM EST
    was deleted due to an overly long url. URL's must be in html format or they skew the site. If you can't figure out how to do it, get a short url at tinyurl.com

    [ Parent ]
    What about mine? (none / 0) (#11)
    by tnjen on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:04:31 PM EST
    O_0 I called Sully a hack. Is that too much?

    [ Parent ]
    you called him two names (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    both personal insults, and yes, it was too much and deleted. This part of your comment was ok:

    His support of Obama is opportunistic and based upon those aspects of libertarianism that Obama embraces.


    [ Parent ]
    Ok thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by tnjen on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    ...for the clarification. I don't see a substantive difference but I shall rephrase and be more careful.

    [ Parent ]
    it's ok (none / 0) (#25)
    by blogname on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    I don't even remember the link at this point....

    [ Parent ]
    How about smart, evidence-based, expertise vs. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Coral on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:10:27 PM EST
    pompous, ignorant, self-serving idiocy?

    We know which side the Bush administration heeded.

    Krugman is certain to get more (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:36:57 PM EST
    attention in the next ten years than Sullivan probably ever will again.....forever and ever.  The closer we get to equal rights for all, the less needed Sullivan drama becomes.  People being able to eat, have full access to healthcare, and healthy futures for all of our children whether their parents are gay, straight, or all of the above is what it is all going to be about.  Boo Hoo Sully, almost nobody cares anymore.  If you're not careful you're the next Anne whoever that venomous angry blonde was who said evil things hoping for attention.

    Sullivan might as well be Ann Coulter. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:11:38 AM EST
    Both spread the hate and lies.
    Both also love to preach about morality all the while having their own signifigant shortcomings.

    [ Parent ]
    Comments (none / 0) (#26)
    by maddog on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    I love reading these comments.  People are bashing Kristol and Warren for being evil and hateful, but listen to yourselves people.  You piss and moan about how the republicans have acted over the last 8 years and now the democrats are in power and you are acting just like them through hate filled speech.  How about talking like this about the taliban, al qeada, hamas, hezbollah, the mullahs in Iran, the Chinese, etc.  I just don't hear it.  It is like Cheney is the devil.

    You blame everything on Bush and Cheney, but I guess you forgot that the democrats controlled congress for the last 2 years.  Congress controls the purse strings of government.  It is in the constitution look it up.

    You talk of Krugman like he is some economic wunderkind.  He is a professor at Princeton who has opinions that many economists do not agree with.  

    I love this comment (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:06:23 PM EST
    for its complete incoherence.

    [ Parent ]
    Must Be The Rabies (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:07:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This was my favorite part (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    "You talk of Krugman like he is some economic wunderkind."

    [ Parent ]
    I would suspect (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    he is a bit old to be a wunderkind. Either that or he is suffering from a bad case of premature aging.

    [ Parent ]
    it's been getting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Nasarius on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:01:45 AM EST
    rather trolly around here lately.

    [ Parent ]
    These are the folks... (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    that were at this morning's meeting:

    Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson
    Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib
    National Journal's Ron Brownstein
    New York Times Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd
    The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan
    MSNBC's Rachel Maddow
    CNN's Roland Martin
    The Boston Globe's Derrick Jackson
    USA Today's DeWayne Wickham

    Paul Krugman was invited and a no show.

    If I were Krugman (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to hang around with that lot either.

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman snubbed (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by JThomas on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 03:25:59 AM EST
    Obama? I know he seems to dislike Obama but that is still surprising.
    Guess he still has not gotten over the primary?

    [ Parent ]
    Maureen Dowd... (4.25 / 4) (#39)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    I would find it difficult being in the same room with Maureen. I'd be wanting to throw a glass of water in her face... maybe while it is still in the glass.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd just ask her (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    if she needed any water to use to take her lithium.

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman is just too good for the likes of them (none / 0) (#40)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    Sorry, but I find Krugman to be a more than a bit of a snob.

    [ Parent ]
    I have found Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 09:53:25 PM EST
    to be very down to earth, even playful at times, like he was on The Daily Show. The Conscience of a Liberal is a wonderful read and I almost always enjoy his editorials very much.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you really? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    And this isn't a statement that knocks your take.  I am fascinated by the different impressions that we all have, and my impressions of people have certainly never panned out 100%.  Whenever I see him giving commentary though I'm at first always struck by something akin to finding him adorable and wanting him to spend the Holidays with us.  By the time he gets deepers into a topic he graduates to almost sexy for me.  How could this be? http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/Militarytracy/Krugman.jpg

    [ Parent ]
    I thought you were a dog person! (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    A secret feline fetish?
    ;-)

    (I just like Krugman because he seems "real" and makes sense - as opposed to making headlines.)

    [ Parent ]

    Do you find him sexy though ever? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:52:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I may have seen him live (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    once or twice - mostly I just read him online.

    I may look him up on youtube now that you've aroused my interest.  

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of the Economy (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:28:37 AM EST
    Apple is looking at a major drop off at tomorrow's opening. It will be interesting to see what effect it has on the market as a whole.

    Apple without Steve Jobs may not be so peachy.

    Har, Har (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 01:45:20 AM EST
    I get it.  But I also think they will continue to do well.

    [ Parent ]
    Apple stock not doing too badly so far..... (none / 0) (#66)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    I considered shorting the stock a few days ago when it hit 94 because I did not believe the whole "hormonal imbalance" thing and figured it was just a matter of time before Jobs started easing out. But, it felt a little creepy trying to profit financially from someones illness.

    [ Parent ]
    Sullivan's an Obama worshipper (none / 0) (#69)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    Which is probably why he was invited.  But the rest of them?  This is the liberal press?  These are sorry times indeed.

    Andrew Sullivan does have the distinction of being a guy seen by a national television audience squeezing his own butt--on the Bill Maher show last year as the credits were running.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#77)
    by AX10 on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    n/t

    [ Parent ]
    Sullivan, Krugman and Kristol | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment