Posted on 06/05/2005 7:53:07 AM PDT by SmithL
In 1999, the boy-publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., had a reasonable idea. He looked at his lineup of columnists and wondered why he had no one who really knew economics. This led him to hire Paul Krugman, a professor from Princeton University.
Today, Krugman writes a column for the Times every Monday and Friday.
Krugman has an impressive resume. He probably knows his economics. (I certainly don't.) But he's also the meanest Bush-hater at the Times. That's saying a lot, considering that the Times also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and formerly employed Howell Raines.
It's hardly surprising that the Times would hire a columnist who blames everything wrong in the world on President Bush. And it's hardly surprising that libertarian Republicans like me would dislike such a man.
What is surprising is that one of his colleagues — a good Democrat at that — appears to dislike Krugman just as much.
This man is Daniel Okrent, who until May 25 was the Times' public editor. In the last column of his 18-month contract, Okrent wrote:
"Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
Okrent added that Krugman is ideological and unfair and should be held to higher standards by the man who hired him.
Okrent also jabbed Maureen Dowd and William Safire, but Krugman got the worst of it. He's also complaining the loudest. According to New York magazine, Okrent says that "Krugman's been writing to me two, three times a day demanding a retraction or apology, and I'm not going to give him either."
Krugman's weeping and gnashing of teeth remind me of the words of Whittaker Chambers: "Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."
What is Krugman's guilt? Well, in short, he's a little Churchill. He's a little Ward Churchill, that is — the Colorado professor who called our 9-11 victims "little Eichmanns." Churchill takes advantage of his droplet of Indian blood to hate America. He thinks it should disappear from the planet.
Similarly, Krugman takes advantage of his economics knowledge to hate Republicans.
Possibly Krugman's grossest statement ever came in October 2003, after the leader of Malaysia declared that "the Jews rule this world by proxy: They get others to fight and die for them."
When the leader of Malaysia makes such a statement, a reasonable person might blame, oh, I don't know, the leader of Malaysia? But we're talking about Paul Krugman here. So he blamed Bush.
Krugman's reasoning went like this: "Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become.
"Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9-11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low."
See how the Krugman game works? Everything is the fault of Bush. We elect him president, and look what happens: Muslims in Malaysia start hating Jews more. Amazing. Who knew Bush had such power?
Anyway, back in the present, when Okrent made his parting statements on May 22, Krugman denied everything and asked for specifics. Okrent supplied them. Krugman rebutted them. I read the debate, but I didn't really understand it. It was mostly about employment statistics and household surveys, making my eyes glaze over.
I was amused by one concession that Krugman did make, however. He wrote that last June 8, "I made a numerical mistake, reading from the wrong line in a table of tax rates during the Reagan years. Although the mistake didn't change the column's conclusions, I reluctantly issued a correction. But I forgot to use the word 'correction,' which I hear got Mr. Okrent upset."
This gave Okrent a chance to spear Krugman one more time. He replied:
"When he says he agreed 'reluctantly' to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word 'reluctantly'; I can't come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism."
This is one damning statement. And it's even more damning when you consider the context. This is the New York Times we're talking about here — the newspaper by and for the world's Bush-haters.
When one Democrat at the New York Times criticizes another Democrat at the New York Times, you know there's got to be a raging fire underneath the smoke. If this is what Okrent says about Krugman in public, can you imagine what he says in private?
That's why I say Okrent must really hate the guy. And now that Okrent has come out, perhaps others at the Times will do the same.
Remember when Howell Raines was clinging to his job during the Jayson Blair debacle? He was pained to find out how so many of his colleagues hated him. I wonder if Krugman will go through a similar process. I hope so. It would make the Times a better, fairer paper.
The final lesson of this saga is that there are two kinds of Democrats. There are Okrent Democrats, and there are Krugman Democrats. The former are honorable. The latter are not. You know which one you are.
Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.
no retraction forthcoming.....
He's a mathematician and an econometrician, I wouldn't call him an economist because he fails to grasp basic theory.
Krugman knows his economics. I'll give him that. But his conclusions are politically motivated, which is why you can read what he writes and agree with his data right up to the point where he tries to sell a totally off conclusion.
He's sneaky, intellectually dishonest, and a prime example of the Liberal Elite.
If you have video of the O'Reilly/Krugman debate, watch how Krugman keeps holding down his right arm. He looked like Peter Seller's character in Dr Strangelove trying to stiffle a Nazi salute. Also, watch the eyes dart back and forth. Krigman was a cornered rat and he acted like it.
"But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at the Republican National Convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity." - Paul Krugman
"Can we break the machine that is imposing right-wing radicalism on the United States? The scariest part is that the media is part of that machine." - Paul Krugman
"The fundamental fact of American politics - and I've sharpened my view on this since last year and the hardcover edition of the book - is that we've got an alliance between the religious right and the accumulators of great wealth. Those are the people who are running things." - Paul Krugman
He is a scared, shallow, snipy, mean little man. I don't care much for O'Reilly, but I RELISHED watching him rip the stuffin' out of Krugman in a debate last year. Krugman came across as the biggest wuss I've ever seen. I swear, he looked as if he were going to cry. :)
I saw that!
Krugman is a moral, academic and political coward.....hands down!
An excellent find.
Krugman really is a slime. :)
Nice post!
Thanks, Bowers is one of my favorite columnists, but real hard to find.
No wonder he fits so well at the NY Slimes!
A shallow fellow
A fallow fellow
A callow fellow
Made of marshmallow
I guess, statistically speaking, there has to be one or two coherent people on the left.
I guess, statistically speaking, there has to be one or two coherent people on the left.
<< Krigman was a cornered rat and he acted like it.
I saw that!
Krugman is a moral, academic and political coward ..... hands down! >>
AND, to boot, an Enron advisor.
Nice one, Smithel!
Was the double post a mistake or something that bears repeating? (grin)
For those who have not seen him on tv, Krugman is a sniveling, sniffling, sweaty-palmed little Rat who always looks like he's about to burst into tears or have a nervous breakdown right on camera.
I'd pay money to see Ann Coulter have a debate with Krugman, and I'll bet that she could make him cry!
As per FreeRepublic Rules:
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.