Truth From Krugman

As usual, a brilliant comment:

"So, let me clarify what I believe is really going on in the choice of Paul Ryan as VP nominee. It is not about satisfying the conservative base, which was motivated anyway by Obama-hatred; it is not about refocusing on the issues, because R&R are both determined to avoid providing any of the crucial specifics about their plans. It is — as Jonathan Chait also seems to understand — about exploiting the gullibility and vanity of the news media, in much the same way that George W. Bush did in 2000."

And as usual, I recommend that you click on the link and read the rest.

As I have now said several times, the Democrats could crush the Republicans with ease in any electoral contest; what they cannot do is beat the unholy alliance between the Republicans and the Press which is a fact of life in American politics today.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And Soledad O'Brien is catching flack for actually daring to call 2 Republican politicians on their "factual errors" aka lies.
August 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM
Grung_e_Gene said…
Chuck Todd as well. How dare the media call lying liars out for their lies! That's evil liberal media!
August 15, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said…
Did you see this comment there?

"You're utterly wrong Doc (which is redundant, I know). The appointment of Paul Ryan as the GOP VP nominee INVITES - indeed DARES - the Democrats to have a serious debate about fiscal policy. Which ticket is out on the stump, right now, speaking to what they will actually DO, economic policy-wise, if elected? It sure as hades isn't Obama-Biden who, essentially from the instant that the estimable Congressman from Wisconsin joined the ticket, have uttered nothing but slurs and jabs about their opposition. When POTUS and VPOTUS start speaking about their own accomplishments rather than the faults of their opposition give me a call. I won't wait up.

And as for the members of the mainstream media being 'players in this campaign', I invite you to take a look in the mirror for a bird's eye view of the poster child for the Very Serious Person whose single-minded jabber targets the two constituencies you mention: the gullible and the vain."
August 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Green Eagle said…
Anonymous, I will have a detailed response to your comment (and to the whole pack of garbage about Ryan being a "serious," "brave" person in any way,) in a day or two. It is most important to see Ryan for who and what he really is, and I certainly intend to get my two cents worth out there.

Thanks for stating your case, as it absolutely deserves an answer, and one with more documentation than I can provide in a comment. I'll be interested in your response to my remarks.
August 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Dave Dubya said…
Why do the corporate media refer to Ryan as the "serious thinker" instead of the radical out to dismantle public safety nets?

Corporate media takes in a fortune for insurance company ads. More fortunes in taxpayer dollars will be funneled into insurance corporations by the Ryan plan. And all the money going into CEO's and shareholders' pockets means that much less for actual health care and retirement/disability.

Insurance companies would be the primary beneficiaries under the GOP privatizing of Medicare and Social Security, not we the people.

It's all about the corporatocracy built by the corporate/government complex.
August 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more