Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's the Truth that Counts
NRO ^ | August 24, 2005 | Donald Luskin

Posted on 08/24/2005 10:38:28 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko


It’s the Truth that Counts
Paul Krugman’s outrageous Florida lie.

“This will be the subject of about a billion blog entries today. Did Krugman really think he could get away with this?” So wrote John Podhoretz on National Review Online’s The Corner on Friday, stunned by an outrageous lie in Paul Krugman’s New York Times column that day. America’s most dangerous liberal pundit had written,
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
Podhoretz was right. By the end of the day, Krugman’s lie had been blasted out of the water by a flotilla of Krugman Truth Squad members in the blogosphere, including Chief Brief, Power Line, Brainster, The American Thinker, Brain Terminal, and my own blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor & Stupid.

Krugman’s lie was especially loathsome considering that his own newspaper — the New York Times — was a member of one of the media consortiums to review the election results. On November 12, 2001, the Times reported:

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations … The media consortium included The Times ...

Of course, Krugman would never publish a formal retraction. As former Times “public editor” Dan Okrent said of Krugman, “I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.” And besides, that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election is the creation-myth of the Angry Left — it is an article of religious faith not to be questioned. And so we find Krugman, in his column Monday, digging himself even deeper into a pit of deceit as he attempts to paper over his lie.

Responding to what he called the “outraged reaction” to his Friday column, Krugman starts by rephrasing his lie in less ambitious terms:

what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner. … what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount — as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.

Now, Krugman acknowledges that Bush would have won if the recount that had actually been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had been allowed to proceed. Now, Krugman makes it clear that what he was talking about on Friday was something more than that — a “full” recount beyond the scope of the one contemplated at the time, something that was not on the table, yet he personally believes “should have been.” Now, Krugman discloses that even this would have made a Gore victory only a “probable answer,” and even then only “by a tiny margin.”

But rephrasing a lie does not make it go away. Even taking account of the critical importance of the word “full,” it remains a lie to say that “Two different news media consortiums ... both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” One of the two consortiums — one led by the Miami Herald and which included USA Today — found no such thing.

This consortium recounted the votes under four standards, ranging from lenient to strict. According to USA Today on April 3, 2002, “By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.”

What does Krugman say about that? More lies. Krugman wrote on Monday, “Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore.” Reality: There were not three counts, there were four. And three out of four went for Bush, not Gore.

Those four counts, however, were not the “full” recounts that Krugman thinks “should have been.” Nevertheless, he lied about them. And even this consortium’s “full” counts — those that dealt with “overvotes” in addition to “undervotes” — don’t support Krugman’s claims. According to USA Today on May 10, 2001, again there were four standards (not three). The winner was “Bush, under the 2 most widely used standards; Gore, under the 2 least used.”

So “full” recount or not, it was an outright lie for Krugman to claim that “both” consortiums named Gore the winner. But what about that second consortium, the one that included the New York Times?

According to the Times itself on November 12, 2001, the most that can be said is that “Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots ... The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory ... ”

So with all that, let’s see what remains of Krugman’s lie. Under the recount process ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, both consortiums agree that Bush would have won. Under the “full” recount process that Krugman thinks “should have been,” one consortium gives the election to Bush under the more widely used standards, and the other consortium only finds that Gore “might” have “eked out” a victory.

Those are the facts. But will the Times run a correction, at least concerning Krugman’s blatant factual misrepresentations about the Miami Herald/USA Today consortium’s results? As of this writing, I’ve heard nothing in response to my query about it to “public editor” Byron Calame. I’m not holding my breath. There’s no way the New York Times is going to interrupt its most effective evangelist when he’s in the middle of a fire-and-brimstone sermon about the Angry Left’s cherished creation-myth.

— Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your visit to his blog and your comments at <!-- .style1 { font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14px; color: #003366; } .style3 {color: #000000} .style4 {font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size: 14px; color: #000000; } -->

*   *   *




TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: floridarecount; krugman; medialies; pajamahadeen; podhoretz
I can understand the NYTimes not wanting to can this liberal twit, but for crying out loud... You'd think they would be embarrassed to continue posting his lies.
1 posted on 08/24/2005 10:38:29 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Oh, goodness, I cannot stand that fool Paul Krugman. It amazes me how he keeps getting invited as a guest on Sunday morning media shows as if he has any credibility. The only credibility he has is the one built by his liberal buddies.

2 posted on 08/24/2005 10:41:35 PM PDT by Quinotto (On matters of style swim with the current,on matters of principle stand like a rock-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Liberals wouldn't know the "truth" if they tripped over it.

3 posted on 08/24/2005 10:43:00 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

"You'd think they would be embarrassed to continue posting his lies."

Of course they're not embarrassed. Lies are what the NYSlimes does best.

4 posted on 08/24/2005 10:50:54 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clee1
Liberals wouldn't know the "truth" if they tripped over it.

When they do stumble across the truth they quickly get up, brush themselves off, and try to forget what happened.
5 posted on 08/24/2005 11:05:58 PM PDT by Jaysun (Democrats: We must become more effective at fooling people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Nope. They just keep on telling the same lie over and over until they actually believe it. That way they think they have the right to get nasty when you call them on it. It's getting old. It really is.

6 posted on 08/24/2005 11:17:34 PM PDT by Just Lori (Praying that liberals will see the light. Yes, I believe in miracles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko


7 posted on 08/24/2005 11:19:04 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Do you mean the Paul Krugman who worked for ENRON at a mere $50,000 a year fee by attending TWO MEETINGS and didn't disclose it to his readers?!

Krugman worked on an advisory board for Enron throughout most of 1999 before resigning to take a job as a columnist.

Or this Paul Krugman?

September 01, 2004

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says he believes the United States needs a "mega-Watergate" scandal to uncover a far-reaching right-wing conspiracy, going back forty years, to gain control of the U.S. government and roll back civil rights.

Krugman made the comments during a forum, "Books on Bush," at New York University Monday evening. While other authors present — former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and House of Bush, House of Saud author Craig Unger — directed their fire at the Bush administration, Krugman told the crowd that the president is simply a front man for larger and more sinister forces.

"We probably make a mistake when we place too much emphasis on Bush the individual," said Krugman, who received a standing ovation when he was introduced. "This really isn't about Bush. Bush is the guy that the movement found to take them over the top. But it didn't start with him, and it won't end with him. What's going on in this country is that a radical movement...that had been building for several decades, finally found their moment and their man in Bush."

Krugman said he and other liberals had been "asleep" and unaware of the true dimensions of the danger during the years in which President Bill Clinton found himself facing a variety of scandal allegations. But Krugman said there is a "complete continuity" between today's politics and the "campaign of slander and innuendo" against Clinton. "There's complete continuity going back, really, I think — but this is my next book — you really need to go back to Goldwater. A lot of this has to do with civil rights, and the people who don't like them."

Krugman described the conspiracy as "the coalition between the malefactors of great wealth and the religious right." He offered no further details about who, precisely, is in the conspiracy but said that "substantial chunks of the media are part of this same movement."

"It's a movement that has been building," Krugman told the audience. "The one thing I think that you really have to say is that people on the left — the position formerly known as the center — people like myself have been asleep for a long time. We just didn't take it seriously. We sat through all the Clinton scandals and said oh, you know, there's probably some funny stuff going on there [and] didn't understand the extent to which this movement was being built."

Now, Krugman said, getting rid of George W. Bush is "necessary but not sufficient" to repair the damage done by the right. "The answer, I think, my great hope now, is that we need an enormous unearthing of the scandals that we know have taken place," Krugman said. "We need a mega-Watergate that rocks them back."

Byron York

8 posted on 08/24/2005 11:22:31 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

And the absentee votes from the military were never counted, and the Feds did nothing about it, even tho Fla. was under a Fed. Consent Order at the time.

9 posted on 08/24/2005 11:26:27 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
Is Krugman the one Rush characterizes as "ferret-like?"


10 posted on 08/25/2005 12:29:44 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Fortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't include the word 'is'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
Is Krugman the one Rush characterizes as "ferret-like?"

An obvious insult to ferrets everywhere.

11 posted on 08/25/2005 2:52:06 AM PDT by Stormcrow ("It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stormcrow; Steely Tom

12 posted on 08/25/2005 3:35:54 AM PDT by pookie18 (Clinton does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson