Dear Mr Krugman

[robbedvoter]

[e-mail]
Subject: Who's Nader now?

I have to start by saying that you and Joseph Wilson are for me the two heroes of these dark three years.
Your columns have been for me the Ariadnae's thread through the dark propaganda and number fudging from this administration. In the process I became somewhat more educated about economics and I am grateful for that.
However, I must confess that I am truly confused by your latest article.
I remember back in October reading your column entitled The Sweet Spot. In it you were saying:


> "So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax
> cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will
> be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of
> middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from
> tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place
> while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of
> the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the
> administration propagandists that much harder."

Now, you maintain that a candidate promoting those very views is so very electable - allowing for the possible exception of Wesley Clark - who btw, will only repeal high income tax.
So, should we be concerned about the nominee's ability to beat Bush, or should we just join the bandwagon of the one that the media prematurely crowned (for reasons obvious to me), Bush's opponent in the general election?
Please explain

[HFishbine]

1. Clark "will only repeal high income tax."

I don't think that's right.

[robbedvoter]

3. Only tax cuts over 200,000 will be repealed by Clark

But you're right. I missed the word "cuts"

[blm]

24. Sorry, but cutting or increasing taxrates equally is the GOP way

because it still puts the burden on the middle and working class.

Since when is progressive taxation uncomfortable for Democrats?

[dsc]

31. It is utterly false to claim that is what Dean wants to do

Even the lying Republicans do not claim that the tax cuts were flat across the board.

[Alice Franken]

2. Please post his response and

I'll email him as well.

Thanks!

[spooky3]

19. welcome, Alice, and LOL to your "handle"!

[Alice Franken]

28. Thank you!

What? You didn't know Al has a twin sister? ;)

[robbedvoter]

4. The wingnuts already started getting ready for the tax raising defense:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/taxsavings2004.php

[maddezmom]

5. how accurate is that site, anyone know?

because if it's accurate, it's going to scare a lot of folks. Me included. :(

[robbedvoter]

9. I have no way of knowing. I suspect it because of the source

I don't trust anything they say. Still, it may be effective for less motivated voters.

[JNelson6563]

26. how credible is more like it

I've even heard those guys referred to as tax cut fanatics by those supply-sider Bush whores on CNBC. Now that's sayin' something!

Julie

[maddezmom]

27. ok how credible is the information?

when I plug in my information, not too happy with the results. Does Dean have anywhere where I can check their info against his?

[wtmusic]

6. good point

however, I think the keyphrase is 'carefully chosen'. Dean promotes an average per-household tax increase of $390 to help relieve an average per-household debt of $5000.

Perhaps Krugman now feels that the administration propagandists might not have it so easy after all.

[madison]

7. I would ask anyone planning to write to Paul Krugman...

I would ask anyone planning to write to Paul Krugman as a result of reading this post to first read his column.

This particular column is not about the tax cut, which is the subject of this posting; it is about Democrats self-destructing.

Many of us here at DU agree that some of the candidates' campaign talk (and activity) has "gone beyond the pale," and is beginning to look more like an attempt to derail Howard Dean's candidacy than to further their own candidacies.

In the process, a few of the candidates are ensuring Bush and Karl Rove will not have to lift a finger to destroy our eventual nominee -- we Democrats will do it ourselves.

Here is the central theme of Paul Krugman's column today:

- - - - - - - - - -

<Yet some of Mr. Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. And I don't buy the excuse that it's all about ensuring that the party chooses an electable candidate.

It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat -- even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault -- I am not making this up -- over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in "denial mode.">

- - - - - - - - - -

at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

Please read Krugman's column before you write your letters to him.

Thank you.

[robbedvoter]

8. I did read the article. here's another letter(not mine):

Dear Mr. Krugman,

I admire your work very much, and have never written to you before. But
I'm a concerned Democrat, and lately I'm reading and writing more than
ever.

I'm concerned by your article "Who's Nader Now." You wrote:

"But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is
less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception
of General Clark."

Let me suggest that it's a huge exception! It deserves much more than
just a by-the-way (within yet another protectionist article on Dean),
because electability is much more than an "excuse," as you said.

Nader helped tank us in 2000 by focusing on "ideals." In 2004, Dean may
tank us the very same way. In an ideal world, the disasters of the Bush
administration would be so obvious to all that we could concern
ourselves with questions of "which candidate will take the party back to
where we want the party to be." On that basis, we could all love Howard
Dean.

But I believe we need to balance Ideals with Reality. Electability is
an issue. You say that Republicans will attack any Democratic candidate.
That's true, of course. But there are critical differences in the
ammunition they'll have, and in the candidates' respective
vulnerability. It seems to me that you've dismissed those differences as
irrelevant, but I consider them absolutely critical.

Your logic says that since they did it to Max Cleland, they'll do it to
anybody, so 'oh well.' My logic says that since they did it to Max
Cleland, we'd better be ready to fight back with everything we can
muster. The GOP is well aware of that victory, and they've been
campaigning on the very same grounds for Bush since 2002 -- the image of
the "strong, experienced military leader" protecting a frightened
America from the scary Arabs is exactly what we're up against. Yes,
there are other issues that people care about, but none of those will
ring through to cross-over voters unless that one is knocked down first,
because the Bush camp will go to it over and over again, every time any
other point is raised, as long and as often as they need to. And fear is
a very powerful thing.

Only Wes Clark can stand up to that. He may not be the ideal to you,
or to our party as a whole, but he's stronger than Dean against the Bush
machine -- and that counts for much more, I think, than you've factored.
The national crisis of political dominance you mentioned is the first
priority.

You say, "This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he
thinks he deserves to be president." I say, "This is no time for a
candidate who is running just because he thinks he can win over or
transform the Democratic party." As I shouted to Nader's image on my TV
set in 2000, "This is NOT the time!!!"

Who's Nader? I say it's Dean.

Sincerely,

[KittyWampus]

10. Dear Mr. Krugman- Why Not Take A Broader View?

And comment how ALL of the Democratic Candidates have or have not attacked each other thus weakening the chances of their opponents in the General Election against Bush?

For instance, Dean called Clark a Republican until 25 days ago... and asserted that he has a "lifetime of voting Republican." This is demonstably false and damaging to Clark should he get the nomination.

Dean has used the Iraq War Resolution as a Wedge Issue within his own party repeatedly and from just about the beginning of his campaign. Note, Dean didn't really promote his opposition to the IWR until he was sure it would get traction.

Dean has also commented several times on the transferrability of his supporters... shades of Ralph Nader's siphoning off precious votes, No?

[robbedvoter]

11. You've got a letter there. Mail it!

[madison]

12. But it is true that on the day Wesley Clark announced his candidacy...

<< For instance, Dean called Clark a Republican until 25 days ago... and asserted that he has a "lifetime of voting Republican." This is demonstably false and damaging to Clark should he get the nomination.>>

But it is true that on the day Wesley Clark announced his candidacy, he was not yet registered as a Democrat. He said that would be taken care of in a few days.

Gen. Clark also stated that he had voted Republican in almost all recent presidential elections. I can't recall whether he said he voted for Bush or for Gore, but he did say he voted for Republicans in all earlier presidential elections.

[KittyWampus]

13. Clark Was An Independant Whose Voted Democrat For 15 Years

has stumped, fundraised and donated money to Democrats.

[madison]

14. Not so..

Not according to Clark's own words.

[madison]

16. A quick Google search produced these bits:

A quick Google search produced these bits:

< August 2003: When asked party affiliation by MSNBC's Bill Press,
CLARK said, "I have not crossed that bridge yet."
PRESS: "If you were to run, would you run as a Democrat or a Republican?"
CLARK: "Well, I have not crossed that bridge yet. But if you look at my policies ... and look at what I have said, Bill, I think it's pretty obvious, OK, and so, when I make the decision to go ahead or not to go ahead at that point, then I will make the decision on partisanship."
PRESS: "Why don't you just … tell us? I mean one of the first things they want to hear from a leader is what party he belongs to, General … Democrat or Republican?" (MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," 8/25/03)

July 2003: Clark Said He Was Non-Partisan Because "Had 'U.S.' On Both Collars." "I served 34 years in uniform. I was 38 years counting my West Point time. I had 'U.S.' on both collars. I'm essentially non-partisan, but I do have some views about what the country should be doing." (Wesley Clark On Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 7/1/03)

December 2001: Clark Registered To Vote But Listed No Party Preference. (Arkansas Voter Registration Form, 12/29/01)

May 2001: "Clark Was The Keynote Speaker At The Pulaski County Republican Committee's Annual Lincoln Day Dinner." (Kelly Wiese, "Retired Gen. Wesley Clark Speaks At GOP Dinner," The Associated Press, 5/11/01)

November 1980 And 1984: Clark Voted For Ronald Reagan. (Adam Nagourney, "Clark Says He Would Have Voted For War," The New York Times, 9/19/03)

November 1972: Clark Voted For Richard Nixon. (Adam Nagourney, "Clark Says He Would Have Voted For War," The New York Times, 9/19/03)>

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research092303.htm
- - - - - - - - - - -

<It has been revealed that Clark voted for Republicans Richard Nixon and George Bush the First. Even more amazingly, Wesley Clark voted for Ronald Reagan twice.>

http://irregulartimes.com/wesleywho.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

<The Clark campaign said the career officer has voted for Republicans for the presidency.>

< (Clark) said he has previously voted for Republicans for president.>

http://www.gazetteonline.com/iowacaucus/notes/notes33.aspx

- - - - - - - - - -- -- -

- Sep. 24, 2003
<Clark said last week that he voted for Republicans in the past, primarily because as a career military man he was inclined toward the GOP -- a characteristic that his advisors say makes him better suited to take on Bush.>

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6846484.htm

- - - - - - - - - - --

<Clark voted for Presidents Reagan and Nixon, praised both Bush administrations and had not registered to vote as a Democrat in his home state of Arkansas before entering the race.>

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/7/211941.shtml

[blm]

25. Some states don't specify. They don't here in SC

so everyone is technically an Independent, including a Socialist Democrat like me.

[lurk_no_more]

18. dean lied

voting Republican is not being a Republican, dean knew Clark was not a Republican so by saying something known to be false is a lie for the sake of lying.

On edit: See post 16: December 2001: Clark Registered To Vote But Listed No Party Preference. (Arkansas Voter Registration Form, 12/29/01)= neither Republican nor Democrat = Clark was a Republican = Lie



” JAFO”

[Alice Franken]

29. "Dean Lied"????

I am shocked! }(

[R3dD0g]

21. Clark was a resident of Arkansas at the time

of his announcement.

Arkansas has no party registration. NONE. There is nothing to verify a Rethug or Dem but their own word. Certainly no piece of paper.

[mrgorth]

15. Oh Jesus

Why did I even bother coming to this forum? Excellent article by Krugman.

[lurk_no_more]

17. Your precise point:

<"So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal.>

Is being discussed as I type this by Rush's stand-in mouthpiece.

dean is getting eaten alive on this by both the left and the right if the diversity of the callers are to be believed.

Interesting take on how taking away an across the board tax cut so that everyone pays more taxes is not a tax increase for everyone.


” JAFO”

[robbedvoter]

20. Another good letter to Krugman:

Dear Mr. Krugman:
 
I usually enjoy your columns, but your latest entry "Who's Nader Now?"
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?th
 
suffers from the same flaw that most of the other Dean defender columns suffer from --It proceeds from the false assumption that Dean has already earned his party's nomination; that he should simply be anointed by the rest of the field.
 
The rest of the Democratic candidates are fighting so hard against Dean because they realize what you and the other Dean apologists do not -- that giving the nomination to him will be a guaranteed defeat in November.  A primary is a fight... and what his rivals are doing to Dean now pales in comparison to what Rove will do to him if he gets the nomination.  The Democrats are absolutely right to do everything they can to remove this flawed candidate from the lead as soon as possible.  Why should they roll over and give him the nomination when no votes have even been cast yet, most voters haven't yet tuned in, and the candidate himself suffers from some of the same weaknesses Bush displays (paranoia, secrecy, draft-dodger) and has no credibility in the areas Bush is most vulnerable in (homeland defense, terrorism, jobs)?  Must his rivals fall into lock step because the press and the polls seem to prefer Dean before any voters have spoken?
 
You may recall that Bill Clinton was not treated with kid gloves at any time during his race for the presidency.  His resilience and toughness, and continual rise above the fray, was what eventually led him to victory time and again.  Not his whining and appeals for time out.
 
You like Dean, therefore you cling to the believe he might be electable. Your column is not convincing... it is no more than a wish that Howard Dean were a better candidate... like Wes Clark, for example.  By your own logic, if the candidates are mostly the same, why should we accept Dean and not give the nomination to Clark, the man who can't be cast as "a wild-eyed liberal who's weak on national security", who IS a decorated war hero, who is "possibly" more electable than the other Democrats, and who is NOT one of the "conventional Washington politician" that Dean so artfully pointed out would have a hard time earning support from the angry base.
 
It is very disappointing to see you taking on the role of the blind leading the blind.
 
Who's Nader Now? Dean is the new Nader. If he were really interested in winning, he'd see the writing on the wall and direct his support toward someone electable, like Clark, rather than leading his party's left wing over the cliff of defeat in November in a fit of Nader-like self-importance. 
 
I only hope we Democrats wake up to that fact before we entrust him with the nomination.
 

[adadem]

23. Excellent letter

right to the point. I, too, am beginning to believe that Dean is becoming the "new" Nader with his derogatory snipes at the DNC. I am no apologist for the DNC but Dean's remarks are devisive and do no good for the Democrats at this point in the game.

[windansea]

22. Dear Mr Krugman

play us a tune
something to make us all happy

like everyone else...Paul has an agenda

he also flips and flops with the best of them

I wouldn't worry about Clark...he has some very astute economic advisors

[stickdog]

30. My letter to Paul Krugman.

Dear Dr Krugman,

As always

:yourock: