Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Krugman Sticks it to Obama ... Again
For the umpteenth time, Paul Krugman has devoted his precious space in print and online claiming that Barack Obama is really speaking for Republicans when seeks to bridge the divide and tries to convince America that he's the right candidate. It's old hat. Mr. Krugman seems to ignore the awfully right wing fight that the Clinton campaign is engaging in. Krugman does mention her support of the Gas Tax Holiday as her pandering to the right or at least getting it wrong. Boo hoo. That's the least of what has been coming out of that camp, and it's certainly not the last.
I believe that there is a point at which all of us looking at the very important issues must step back from the ideology that guides us, and step into the shoes of our opponents. We might not agree with everything they say or claim or demand, but compromise is the cornerstone of progress. It is clear to me, as a regular person, that words like "mandate" when coupled with services like health care set off alarms for conservatives who are averse to big government. "Socialized medicine" is already the common slur against the Democrats' attempts at universal health care. Thems fightin' words. Words that need to be considered when planning the showdown that will occur when this plan actually hits Congress.
When the Clintons' original plan, which inflexibly included a mandate, made it to Congress in 1994 Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee, had already drafted a universal health care bill that "had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats". Both plans failed, because the Clintons' wanted nothing to with the Cooper bill over their own.
So here we are in 2008. Mandates or not, the Democrats are the only ones coming up with a solution and some of us feel so strongly about the minutia that it's worth constantly scratching away at the forerunner. It was annoying back in February, but now — after we've seen the O'Reilly show, the Richard Mellon-Scaife show, the "I'm more pious than he is" show — it sounds silly.
Comments (10)
Krugman has been so obviously biased in favor of Clinton for so long that I suspect(hope) anyone reading him doesn't believe he is providing honest analysis.
May 2, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman has been so blatantly and emotionally invested in the Clinton campaign that I can only conclude that he has some kind of personal or financial stake in it. It's frankly hackery of the worst kind: he writes a 500 word column about every little thing Obama does wrong, meanwhile it's Hillary Clinton who is running as a Republican (make no mistake about it...hold up her campaign tactics next to those of the GOP and tell me what the difference is) and Krugman says nothing.
It's shameful, disgusting, and someone with a big platform should call him out on it. (Kind of like the Clinton campaign, come to think of it.)
May 2, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, I don't care what type of campaign tactics Democrats use, so long as they are support a progressive agenda and believe in liberal values.
And this is my problem with a lot of Obama supporters; they believe that the major difference between the GOP and the Democrats lies in how each party campaigns (negative vs. 'above the fray' for example).
If it takes a Democrat to slime and mock and distort in order to get universal health care and an end to the Iraq war, well... that's what it takes.
May 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that we've been down the hard scrabble politics road before on these issues. No one is singing Kumbaya — poor song has been thrown under the bus a lot lately — but is inescapable that we aren't going to get the truly progressive policies without support from the right. It's not impossible just challenging.
May 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. On the other hand, I guess it's his prerogative, even if it makes him look petty.
May 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman = sellout
May 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You people are total emotionally reactionary. Krugman had a falling out with the Clintons back in 1992. His criticism of Obama adds significantly to his credibility because he risks losing readership among many "liberals" who like to be "liberal" while drinking their $5.00 lattes and sitting in Starbucks on the upper east side. Read his book to see why he supports Clinton's health care policy and what the root of his problem with Obama is--it's actually a very serious problem.
Where it counts, Obama uses Republican scare tactics, like saying that social security is going bankrupt. This is an evil ploy that bush used after the 2004 election to try and dismantle government. If you are a true progressive liberal, you would want to go in exactly the opposite direction. He goes on to attack the ONE candidate in the race fighting for universal health care by saying that the "government will force you do this or that" This is pure evil distortion. Achieving health care reform is probably the single most important domestic policy that we need to achieve and sadly, even if he somehow gets elected while losing in FL, OH, and PA, Obama has no ground (or desire apparently) on which to stand in order to fight for universal health care. His campaign suggests he won't fight for much actually.
Moving "beyond political fighting" with Republicans is an utter joke. There has not been political "fighting" over the past 8 years. Bush and co. have done what they want. Now, we finally have the chance to have a democratic congress and presidency and we are on the verge of nominating a guy who doesn't seek universal health care and scares us that social security is about to go bankrupt (it's NOT)--what a WASTE of an opportunity.
May 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I'd much rather back the candidate who voted for the Iraq war and now wants to obliterate Iran.
May 3, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman's ego is so caught up in his own views that he finds it very difficult to be objective. Fortunately, it is pretty obvious when he takes off his economist hat and puts on his partisan one as it rarely has any analysis and when it does it's always one-sided. Still, he should add a disclaimer.
"The views expressed here are my own, but I may choose to ignore facts and avoid analysis that does not support them. I do not officially represent the Hillary Clinton campaign, but you can bet your ass I do."
May 2, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
According the Wikipedia: "The tax increases or benefit cuts required to maintain the system as it exists under current law are significantly higher the longer such changes are delayed. For example, raising the payroll tax rate to 14.1% immediately (from the current 12.4%) or cutting benefits by 11.4% would address the program's budgetary concerns indefinitely; these amounts increase to around 16% and 22% if no changes are made until 2041, when the fund is exhausted."
This isn't a scare device, it appears to indicate the direction the fund is heading. No one in the Democratic party is trying to scare people about Social Security — they're already scared! The idea is to offer a way to bolster a key social safety net for the ever increasing number of beneficiaries.
May 2, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment