The People Who Are Too Strong
For Barack Obama to take on, from a recent survey from the New York Times:
Yes, these people are less highly regarded in this country than Muslims or Atheists, but they are still the authentic voice of the American people, three years after their views brought us to the brink of disaster, and they must be obeyed.
On the other hand, as this public comment from an Obama campaign aide shows, they know who the real enemy is:
Of course, there is one area where Paul Krugman is not a rookie: in being right about the economy, which he has consistently been throughout his career as a commentator. But no, by giving Boehner trillions in government cutbacks while getting absolutely nothing in return, Obama "ate John Boener's lunch."
Obama didn't eat Boehner's lunch, he was Boehner's lunch.
Let me make it clear, the argument that spending cuts are bad for a fragile economy is not any more simplistic than the argument that gravity makes things fall down instead of up. It is simply true. And as for Krugman's advocating defense cuts, it has long been established that money spent on the military is the least functional thing government can do to boost the economy. Krugman's actual position- favoring more domestic spending, part of it financed by cutting useless military expenditures, is totally consistent.
I suspect that the guy that wrote this and published it, surely with Obama administration approval, doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and like any Republican operative is just spouting talking points. But by now you can hardly discount the possibility that he is a willing liar, gladly furthering the process of Obama's joining with the Republicans and savaging his base, which somehow Obama thinks is going to win him national support in 2012.
"...in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right."
Yes, these people are less highly regarded in this country than Muslims or Atheists, but they are still the authentic voice of the American people, three years after their views brought us to the brink of disaster, and they must be obeyed.
On the other hand, as this public comment from an Obama campaign aide shows, they know who the real enemy is:
"Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That's why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional...Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster - both political and economic - of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts - any spending cuts - are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own previous cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending.
He is either unwilling or unable to actually look at the deal that was announced and realize what just happened: Barack Obama ate John Boehner's lunch..."
He is either unwilling or unable to actually look at the deal that was announced and realize what just happened: Barack Obama ate John Boehner's lunch..."
Of course, there is one area where Paul Krugman is not a rookie: in being right about the economy, which he has consistently been throughout his career as a commentator. But no, by giving Boehner trillions in government cutbacks while getting absolutely nothing in return, Obama "ate John Boener's lunch."
Obama didn't eat Boehner's lunch, he was Boehner's lunch.
Let me make it clear, the argument that spending cuts are bad for a fragile economy is not any more simplistic than the argument that gravity makes things fall down instead of up. It is simply true. And as for Krugman's advocating defense cuts, it has long been established that money spent on the military is the least functional thing government can do to boost the economy. Krugman's actual position- favoring more domestic spending, part of it financed by cutting useless military expenditures, is totally consistent.
I suspect that the guy that wrote this and published it, surely with Obama administration approval, doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and like any Republican operative is just spouting talking points. But by now you can hardly discount the possibility that he is a willing liar, gladly furthering the process of Obama's joining with the Republicans and savaging his base, which somehow Obama thinks is going to win him national support in 2012.
Comments