Paul Krugman of NYT: Obama is being dismissive when he should be outraged...

[polichick]

RE McCain's gimmicky energy ads ~ he should tell people they're being scammed. He says it's a mistake to think people aren't falling for this quick fix idea.

He said Obama should BE outraged, not that he should ACT outraged.

I hope the campaign is listening.

(KO's show)


Edited to clear up what he meant by being outraged.

[WeDidIt]

1. I completely tuned out Krugman

I put no value whatsoever in what he has to say any longer, and never will again.

[polichick]

3. He knows how the oil business works - had it 100% right...

And many Americans, even in FL and CA, are falling for the scam.

[WeDidIt]

5. I'll never trust any word out of that man's mouth

Sorry, he was too much of a sycophant for Hillary during the primaries. I do not trust him and never will trust him.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. It was so obvious, wasn't it?

You know he was promised a sweet job in her administration and Obama pulled that rug right out from under him.

[WeDidIt]

13. Which is why you can't trust a word out of his mouth

he's pissed and it gets in teh way of his judgement.

[polichick]

14. Like him or not, he understands the oil business - and most Americans don't...

That's the point ~ Obama needs to expose the scam.

[WeDidIt]

21. I don't trust him

ergo, I dismiss him.

[polichick]

25. Good thing you're already supporting Obama...

You sound like the non-thinkers who will buy the scam.

[WeDidIt]

27. PAul KRugman has no credibility any longer

Sorry if you don't like that, but it's my opinion of the fool.

[chimpymustgo]

32. THat is LUDICROUS. Krugman preferred Edwards and Hillary's health care plan. Shoot him for that!

Krugman is one of the GOOD guys. Silly talk.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Krugman had a hardon from Dec 2007 on.

Sure, it was all about the one difference in features between the health care plans. :eyes: Funny how, considering health care is soooo important to him and he's such an influential NYT writer and all, he saw fit to write only ONE column criticizing McCain's trainwreck of a plan, in contrast to the several he wrote excoriating Obama because he didn't want to mandate his plan. Oh and another reason Krugman was peeved was because the Obama campaign called him out for his previous criticisms of mandates. Which Krugman all of a sudden supported, once his girl Hillary wanted them.

[WeDidIt]

39. No, he got downright NASTY on Obama and Obama supporters

I'll never trust him.

There are a slew of others I'll never trust again, too.

Lanny Davis
James Carville
Paul Begala
Peter Daou

There are many many more. I trust these people no more than I trust the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. I put them ALL in the same category.

[JoFerret]

86. NOW I get the simple mindedness

You identify yourself with those few Obama supporters that PK showed as mindless.

[CTyankee]

17. On Econ, tho, he's great. Reconsider, (logically).

[WeDidIt]

20. Sorry, can't trust him

His opinion is worthless to me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Yeah, Ronald Reagan thought he was great on the economy too, back when Paul worked for him.

Krugman loves him some outsourcing and globalization.

[paulk]

50. damn - you Obama shit smearers will sink to any depth

when you feel someone has dissed your messiah.

You and your like are Obama's own worst enemies.

Krugman, in the long run, is a liberal who is on OUR side.

Keep pissing on people like him and you will cost us this election.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. Krugman is a former Reagan advisor who likes outsourcing.

"Liberal" and "on our side" are relative. Sure, he's not as gawd awful as Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan, but that's not saying much.

And save your drama over costing us the election. Krugman did more toward that score by choosing to excoriate Obama over a detail in his health plan over going after McCain and the other Repukes over theirs. Since health care is so all fired important to him (or at least it was a few months ago) then why isn't he hammering McCain relentlessly over that issue right now?

[depakid]

56. My guess is that you haven't read (much less thought about) much that he's written

and certainly none of his books...

If you had, you'd realize how ridiculous you just sounded.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

64. One article about McCain's plan back in April. And he managed to bash Obama in it.

Face it, your hero has clay feet.

Man, and they accused us Obama supporters of being in a cult of personality. We got nothing on Krugman Worshippers. :eyes:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

66. Krugman on outsourcing: "outsourcing is less than a threat than is widely perceived"

The reason it seems so bad right now is we have a generally weak economy and generally poor employment. If that were improved, then we'd have a very different perspective on it and it would require pretty modest steps.

Duh, Paul. :eyes:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002394.php

[hisownpetard]

67. Oof! Great post.

[paulk]

87. Krugman has attacked McCain on healthcare

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ex=1365048000&en=df596b7b63bfb84b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Instead of spending your time swimming in bile, try doing some research...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

22. HE was wrong throughout the primaries

I see no reason to expect him to magically be right now.

[paulk]

24. yeah, whatever.

[WeDidIt]

26. Sure, not a problem.

[jumptheshadow]

61. He was not wrong throughout the primaries

He was right about mandates and he was right about Social Security. In fact, Krugman has been a huge thorn in the side of the Bush administration, exposing their shabby policies when no other mainstream journalists had the guts to join him. I've been following the man for years, and he is a hero. It's obvious that you haven't read his work.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. So when's he going to start getting on McCain's case about his horrible health plan?

So far he's written one column, back in April, about McCain's plan. And still managed to slam Obama in it.

As for this drilling thing, Obama's position is the one he agrees with but all he can do is go on Olbermann and (surprise surprise :eyes:) bash Obama.

[jumptheshadow]

89. For God's sake

Read the column.

http://www.nytimes.com

Its focus is a criticism of MCCAIN'S bad economic policies.

There may be one or two paragraphs that mention Obama toward the end. What he says is that Obama should be morally outraged by McCain's campaign, not brushing it off.

It's obvious that many of the people on this thread are commenting on something they didn't even bother to read.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

88. "Or is there something you'd like to tell us? "

yeah, there is

maybe it's time you and the rest of the bitter supporters of the primary candidate who won got over it.

[JoFerret]

35. Very foolish

but then - I feel the same way about Keith Olbermann who so many appear to revere.
Of course - they are not comparable figures. Quite different in intellectual depth, information, professions, roles, experience and etc.

[WeDidIt]

58. Krugman is no more of a critical thinker than Hannity.

[JoFerret]

62. In your view

(which is clearly not based on reality)

Your name says "any dem". How come that does not apply to Krugman?

[WeDidIt]

63. Krugman is a piece of crap

and I'll never trust a word out of the piece of crap's mouth.

If Krugman says something, the statement is as suspect ijn my mind as anything out of Hannity's mouth.

[depakid]

55. Way to critically think!

That'll make you wiser, for sure.

[WeDidIt]

59. I don't listen to Hannity, either

Both Hannity and Krugman are idiots of the same stripe.

[JoFerret]

81. Yep Hannity

is way too much like Olbermann.

[Whisp]

2. outraged black man will not work for him

it's not like we live in a equal society.
he's handling it just fine.
he's making heads explode with frustration at him not taking that bait.

[polichick]

4. He meant that Obama needs to spell out how people are being scammed...

Instead of assuming people won't fall for it.

[gateley]

6. You are so right - 'it's not like we live in an equal society' nt

[napi21]

8. Did you listen to Paul? He said Barack should have said

the American PEOPLE should be outraged because it's a scam! I don't disagree with you that Barack himself should show outrage, but as KO said, he needs to lead the people through to the logical conclusion. Yes it's sad that a candidate has to do that, but unfortunately it's the way it is.

[polichick]

9. He did it with the gas tax scam - just needs to do it again.

[my2sense]

12. This is true - it wouldn' t hurt to step folk thru the scam n/t

[polichick]

18. He probably assumes people won't fall for quick fixes - again!

[napi21]

33. I really hate to bring up an old saying, but you do know what

"assume" means...don't you?

[polichick]

41. Well, much as I like Barack, he's an ass if he thinks people are getting the drilling issue...

But I have faith that the campaign will try to make it clear to people, like they did the gas tax holiday.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. It's not the candidate's job to educate people. I know that sounds crazy but it's the truth.

It's the candidate's job to stay on message and get elected. It's surrogates who need to get out there and explain why offshore drilling is a bad idea. It's also great for people like Krugman to write NYT opeds, but most people don't read them. What is needed is a simple message like "John McCain is putting oil company profits ahead of real solutions".

[napi21]

38. You're right on thesimple message idea. That's where the Pubs beat us

every time! However, re: the candidate briefly walking his supporters through the logic of a scam becomes part of his job when HE is responding to his opponents positions. THAT'S where this idea would fit perfectly. The short message could have been "When you hear John McCain push the tax holiday you should be outraged! It's a scam that takes badly needed money from repairing your roads & bridges and only benefits the OIL COMPANIES!" Many people don't read op-eds or listen to KO, but lots of them listen to the candidate!

[Cha]

10. Yeah, 'cause fucking krugman knows best and

he won't shut up.

[polichick]

11. Well he was right about how people misperceive oil production...

And how they are being scammed by McCain.

[Cha]

16. Okay but I don't like krugman's whining from

the primaries so I question his every motive.

[polichick]

19. Maybe Obama could choose the right surrogate to explain the scam...

Or do an ad with some experts.

[Cha]

45. Definetly!

'Cause mccain is groveling, begging, and shooting his whole infantile wad right now.

[Whisp]

28. me too. He really disappointed me the way he conducted himself.

I didn't think he was such an asshole, but apparently it's a latent quality of his.
he could have supported Clinton without the smelly flowery stuff.

[WeDidIt]

29. Yup, that's part of the problem right there

The other half of my problem was the nasty crap he threw at Obama.

He's another Lanny Davis as far as I'm concerned.

[Cha]

43. Touche, Whisp!

It was down right gross.

[TexasObserver]

30. How perceptive is a man who wears a bad rug?

If that ain't a rug he's wearing, it's the worst haircut in these United States.

I'm talking about Krugman.


As for the point of whether Obama should react more forcefully to those McCain energy ads, I have a lot more confidence in Obama's judgment in this regard than Krugman's. Krugman is useful on matters in his field of expertise. Beyond that, he's just another pundit talking out his ass.

[polichick]

31. Wish I'd emphasized the issue without using his name...

He was dead on about how people are falling for the oil scam, and what it's really all about.

[TexasObserver]

34. I'll address your central point separately, then.

Sorry. I didn't mean to make short shrift of your central theme.

Yes, Obama does need to stop allowing to stand unanswered SUBSTANTIVE statements of position.

I wish Obama had tried a bunch of cases, because he would have a better understand the process of advocacy. He's a fantastic speaker, but he paints in broad brushed strokes. You have to sell a concept by saying unequivocally: "McCain's plan is deficient because of A, B, and C. Mine works because of D, E, and F."

He's got to be more effective delineating his positions and McCain's.

When 12 jurors sit down to judge a case, if you're going to try to sell them your side, you'd better know that one or two of them will think, read and write at the level of a seventh grader. If you cannot explain yourself to them, you will lose them. You cannot talk around issues, and you cannot fail to explain in short, clear, concise terms exactly what you want them to do and why.

In an election the 8-16% in the middle will decide the election, and they are analogous to those 8-16% of the jury who are thinking at a 12 year old's level.

[polichick]

40. "McCain's plan is deficient because of A, B, and C. Mine works because of D, E, and F."

Thanks - yes, exactly.

Most Americans don't even realize that refineries have been shut down because they weren't considered profitable enough. There are 68+ million acres of leases not being used ~ this is a grab for future profits when people are at their most vulnerable and can be manipulated.

Like you said, it has to be spelled out.

[TexasObserver]

46. For example on the topic of oil and gas ...

There is huge new discovery of the cleanest fossil fuel, gas, in western Louisiana and eastern Texas. The New York Times carried the story July 29th. It is believed there is enough deep gas in the field, as yet untapped, to yield enough gas to meet US gas needs for 11 years, all by itself.

That's a huge, huge find, and it's in areas that already have wells. With new technologies and recovery techniques, that gas will be extracted.

Obama could hold a presser, talking about how finding gas in this circumstance is a decade faster to useable energy than ANWR, and these fields are already drilled. He could use it as an example of why we should be finding oil and gas where we already know it is.

Oil that was uneconomic to retrieve at $50 a barrel is suddenly more economic at today's prices. That means they are going back to old wells and getting them into production again.

[polichick]

49. Yes - a presser with some known experts would be helpful.

[depakid]

60. That's based on estimates from an interested energy consultant

aimed at finding investors for energy companies. Fact is, no one knows how much natural gas is likely to be produced from the Haynesville Shale fields.

Might be historic, might not be.

But one thing for sure- it won't hurt the Republican efforts to demogogue on the drilling issue.

[TexasObserver]

69. No, it's not. It's based upon widespread knowledge of experts in this area, in this field.

I know people who own wells in the region, have for years, and have personal knowledge of the matters I've discussed, and which have been reported in the NY Times and other media. I've put a lot of time into investigating these matters for clients who have received huge offers for their oil and gas rights in the field. I'm not pulling comments out of my ass, like you are. I'm speaking from knowledge, not supposition, as you are.

I imagine there's some area in which you have expertise, but it's not law or oil & gas, that's for sure.

[LisaM]

76. Totally. It 's like a red flag to the Hillary haters. n/t

[polichick]

78. It's shocking how people will ignorantly refuse to see the point.

[LisaM]

82. They just mentioned Krugman on Thom Hartmann....

and guess what? He didn't go ballistic!

[polichick]

83. LOL

[DeepModem Mom]

42. I'll give you a rec and an agreement. How many times does this have to happen to us?

Instead of flipping this stuff off as funny stuff anybody can recognize as ridiculous (which is not the case, believe me!), Obama and his people should be saying -- THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! Enough!

I agree with Krugman. Am I concerned? Yep. I'm concerned, and I am no troll.

And I'll add, I don't see it as helpful to shoot the messenger, in this case Krugman. We have to be cheerleaders, we want to be cheerleaders -- but at the same time we have to be realistic. This election, like the Iraq War, is no cakewalk.

[polichick]

44. Well said - thanks!

[DeepModem Mom]

47. I just returned from dinner -- and I see Krugman is repeating on KO at this moment. nt

[Occam Bandage]

48. Completely agreed.

[Frank Booth]

51. The Obama campaign has completely dropped the ball on the energy issue.

Obama should just be pummeling McCain on it. There is no logical reason why McCain should have any credibility on the issue whatsoever.

Obama needs a hard hitting ad showing the massive amounts oil companies have given McCain, and illustrating the simple fact that opening off-shore drilling won't affect gas prices for literally decades, and then only a few cents on the dollar.

This issue should be an easy winner for Obama, and he's losing it.

Krugman may have acted like an idiot at times during the primaries, but he's spot on here.

[polichick]

53. The campaign is probably just giving people much more credit than they deserve...

But fear and ignorance is a powerful combination ~ let's hope they deal with this soon!

[depakid]

54. People are being scammed- and they're buying it

For years in California, a sizeable majority of people were strongly opposed to more offshore oil rigs.

Now, after a only a couple of weeks of Republican demogoguery- a majority of Californians actually FAVOR more drilling- despite the FACT that it's do NOTHING to lower their petrol prices and likely will end up costing them tax monies.

How many more issues like this can the Dems afford to drop the ball on- or punt away?

Sometimes, it just boggles the mind to watch this stuff.

[polichick]

57. Floridians have switched too - and Dems in Congress may cave...

Obama should have an energy summit with experts and press ~ FAST!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Krugman's so full of shit.

He was on KO whining about how Obama is ignoring McCain's energy plan directly after they showed footage of Obama savaging McCain's energy plan.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

68. He's a dick. What's even more annoying is the DUers who think he walks on water.

It's more and more obvious that he was going to get a sweet job in the Clinton administration and Obama dashed his hopes. Vindictive prick.

[Virginia Dare]

71. They SO want him to be the angry black man..

don't take the bait Obama.

[polichick]

77. Wow - you completely missed the point...

Which is that he can't dismiss McCain's bogus energy ads ~ he has to address them strongly because people are buying it.

[Major Hogwash]

72. Obama already addressed this - yesterday.

Obama gave a speech in Ohio where he totally ripped McCain's so-called "energy policy" to shreds.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

74. Nothing Obama does will ever be good enough for Paul Krugman. nt

[polichick]

75. Unfortunately even voters in FL & CA are buying into the offshore hoax...

Obama will have to spell it out in easy-to-understand ads.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Looks like people are buying into Krugman's hoax too.

Yeesh.

[polichick]

80. Get past the messenger already...

He was 100% right last night on KO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Paul Krugman lied to your face, in spite of video evidence to the contrary.

Paul Krugman is carrying John McCain's water for him, and apparently you are too.

[polichick]

85. Instead of whining about the messenger, why not address the specific point you disagree with?