Paul Krugman took a strange swipe at Glenn Greenwald when Glenn wrote tangentially about the Gruber disclosure brouhaha. Glenn's response is a winner:

Nobody suggests that there's anything wrong with hiring Gruber to perform modeling analyses and paying him to do so. That's all perfectly appropriate; I'm all in favor of the Government's retaining genuine experts (as Gruber is) for analysis. Nor has anyone claimed that Gruber changed his views because of these payments. The issue is the non-disclosure, and -- most serious of all -- the misleading attempts by the White House and others to depict him as being "objective" and independent rather than disclosing that he was being paid a significant amount of money by the very party whose interests his advocacy was advancing[.]

I can not believe anyone disagrees with Glenn's point here. Krugman seems to be flailing here. Note, as someone accused of not disclosing conflicts of interest in the past, I am pretty averse to these types of charges. But Gruber's failure to disclose in this instance seems pretty direct. He should have disclosed.

Speaking for me only