Skip to comments.
Tea Parties Forever (Krugman psycho rant - Tea Party/Tax Revolt updates and links)
The New York Times ^
| April 13, 2009
| Paul Krugman
Posted on 04/13/2009 2:04:54 AM PDT by abb
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.
Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.
snip
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
snip
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: krugman; taxes; taxrevolt; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: tet68
“Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.” (now you KNOW you're in trouble)
“And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.”
Couldn't have said it better myself, Paul, you crazy bed bug. To think that someone would pay $50,000 a year in tuition to listen to this drivel is astounding. This guy may be a nobel prize winning economist but I'd bet a years pay he couldn't run a corner grocery store to save his life!
21
posted on
04/13/2009 2:39:30 AM PDT
by
RU88
(The false messiah can not change water into wine any more than he can get unity from diversity.)
To: abb
This crap makes me very angry.
These people think they have an endless right to take by force what is not theirs.
The dream of America is quickly coming to an end because of people who think like Krugman.
I use to think there was a “silent majority” in this country that believed in property rights, individual freedom and the constitution. It is becoming painful clear I was wrong.
22
posted on
04/13/2009 2:42:16 AM PDT
by
DB
To: abb
23
posted on
04/13/2009 2:44:23 AM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb; All
24
posted on
04/13/2009 2:53:36 AM PDT
by
backhoe
(All across America, the Lights are going out...)
To: abb
Ah, the old leftist Chairman Mao tactic: Whomever disagrees with me is insane.
To: abb
I’d be happier if the GOP went away forever and we had us a Tea Party ticket to run on instead.
To: abb
Another supreme case of projection.
27
posted on
04/13/2009 3:09:00 AM PDT
by
thecabal
(Hey Obama, when you gonna start sharin' the sacrifice?)
To: Darkwolf377
Very good post. Here are the particulars I would add:
1) Krugman is unfortunately correct the GOP has virtually no ability to shape policy, that is almost exclusively in the hands of Democrats -which explains the tea parties.
2) Krugman calls Republicans "crazy" and says that the tea parties "have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so." But up to the point of making these allegations, he has offered not one word in support of them.
3) Krugman calls Republicans "bizarre" because the Republicans have called Obama a "socialist" who "seeks to destroy capitalism." Krugman thinks Americans are moved to take to the streets in protest because Obama wants to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans back to the levels of the Reagan administration. There are some other factors, Mr. Krugman, such as Obama's plan to give welfare to non-taxpayers; his taking over of banks and insurance companies to the point of firing employees of whom he disapproves; his unilaterally guaranteeing the warrantees on automobiles; his threats against the coal industry; his threats to nationalize (or should I have better said, "to socialize?) the healthcare industry; the threats to control salaries in all industries; etc.
4) Krugman claims the Republicans use the term "socialism" because the term "liberal" no longer carries the punch it used to. One might question why the Democrats are running away from the term "liberal" if it is so innocuous? It might also be that Republicans are consciously saying "socialist" because Obama is just that, a country mile past "liberal."
5) Krugman maintains that Karl Rove's description of liberals wanting to offer "therapy and understanding" to liberals was "bizarre." One need only think of Bill Clinton's statement after terrorists murdered 3000 Americans and brought down the twin towers to the effect that we should understand that this was a reaction to the Crusades. Surely, Karl Rove's criticism was well within the bounds of fair comment.
6) Krugman deplores the following "crazy stuff": "Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim." Mr. Krugman, which is crazier: asking where Obama was born because the documentation is arguably incomplete, or failing to produce the documentation which costs about $12 in favor of spending millions of dollars defending lawsuits on the subject? You are an economist, the answer should be easy for you. Why is it "crazy" to claim the Obama is a secret Muslim when he was listed as a Moslem on official school documents while he was in school in Indonesia? when his stepfather was a Moslem? when he spent four years in a Muslim school? when every known member of his family on his father's side is a Muslim? Does not this accumulation of facts constitute a reasonable predicate for the assertion. Certainly one cannot say that the assertion under these circumstances is "crazy."
7) Krugman notes that some Republicans have called the Clintons "murderers." I leave the reader to review the paragraph in which Mr. Krugman makes these allegations and see how despicable he uses the passive voice so that in some instances the utterers of these deformations need not be named by Krugman. A scurrilous artifice of language. When he does name names, such as Rush Limbaugh, he invokes the qualifier, "innuendo" to leave the reader with the false impression that Limbaugh and big-league conservative media outlets have made these accusations when Krugman knows full well they have not. Shame on you Mr. Krugman.
8) Krugman must really lose it when he contemplates Rush Limbaugh. Consider this sentence, "The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials." Mr. Krugman, it is one thing to vouchsafe a polemicist a certain amount of hyperbole but you've gone over the line here. Unless you can show that Republicans who endured these "Stalinist show trials" were taken out and executed or were sent to a gulag, you should abjectly apologize. You have lost every bit of credibility with such an outrageous slander. Too bad you didn't invoke the Nazi Holocaust and the show trials of Adolf Hitler, and perhaps even some people on the left might have been repulsed enough to speak out against you because then you would have reached political correctness so precious to your side.
9) Krugman asserts without documentation that evolution has been denounced at the tea parties. Such a charge need not be defended if it is not documented. If there is any truth to it I would suspect that it has to do with the denunciation of a school system which compels the teaching of evolution and prohibits at the same time the teaching of alternative theories. Not such a bad position to hold in a free society with a "liberal" understanding of the means and purposes of education.
10) Krugman rounds out his screed by calling the Republicans "childish"-or at least insist that they refuse to grow up- and declaring that they are "clueless" particularly about economic policy. He does not deign to document these charges either.
It is incredible to realize that this rant can appear in what used to be known as America's newspaper of record. One might ask the old Gray Lady a question which they once seized upon and distorted to destroy Joseph McCarthy, "at long last have you no shame?"
28
posted on
04/13/2009 3:13:01 AM PDT
by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
To: abb
29
posted on
04/13/2009 3:20:02 AM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
Wow! Just Wow!
That was painful to read.
I wonder what goes on in this guys brain bucket when he is frustrated and his party is not in power?
30
posted on
04/13/2009 3:22:09 AM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: abb
31
posted on
04/13/2009 3:25:14 AM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: nathanbedford
Did you send this to Krugman? If not you should
To: nathanbedford
Another keeper from nathanbedfored. Logrolling over... ;) I'd just add to something you brought up:
Krugman and his ilk would like nothing better than to get people to believe that "socialism" is just a Republican smear of "liberalism." I won't mince words--Krugman is a liar of the worst kind.
Simply put, liberals--not classical liberals, not moderates, but liberals--LOATHED the spread of socialism in the early part of the last century because it was sneaking in under the sheep's clothing of liberalism. These are NOT the same things--I can disagree with liberalism without smearing it, but more importantly, LIBERALS back then didn't want what is happening right now to happen. They HATED Stalin but they also hated communism.
Honest liberals, whatever I think of their beliefs, have tried to get this message out. Film writer Richard Shickel (sp) in particular wrote a very thoughtful, detailed article some years ago about how Hollywood liberals became victims of the attempts by communists to pretend THEY were liberals.
This is a crucial point which Krugman knows and it reveals his true position. No genuine liberal, no honest liberal, would stand for this kind of thing, because it goes to the crux of a very important distinction which is almost gone. The youth of today who would have been liberals--people of the left who would have policy differences with us but who were loyal Americans--are becoming socialists. A true liberal--if any are left--would be fighting the corruption of his cause, not continue to obfuscate a real, important corruption.
To: Darkwolf377
Marxism is Marxism no matter how they try and paper it over. They can’t hide it with any amount of perfume or jewelry.
Something for nothing. The oldest scam since the dawn of mankind. That’s all Marxism has ever been and all it will ever be.
34
posted on
04/13/2009 3:34:03 AM PDT
by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
“...and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires.”
Like who?
35
posted on
04/13/2009 3:35:10 AM PDT
by
vladimir998
(Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
To: vladimir998
“...and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires.”
Speaking of billionaires, is anyone concern that Soros or another like him will send people (acorn or the like) into tea parties and have them start real problems (violence, shootings...) and blame it on the right? Hopefully there are many video camera's there to tape the faces of anyone starting trouble.
To: abb
Former Enron adviser Krugman fell for socialism, hence, he flunked reality 101 and is stuck on stupid. Anything he has to say about economics or politics is worthless.
37
posted on
04/13/2009 3:49:46 AM PDT
by
muir_redwoods
( O.B.A.M.A. = One Big Asinine Mistake, America)
To: abb
Yes, and unfortunately they have cultivated a generation, members of which have repeated TO MY FACE the oldest, scariest line of the Marxists: “But REAL Marxism/Socialism/Communism has never been tried!” A mindset which will perpetuate that particular Hell-on-Earth as long as there are gullible people who think with their feelings.
To: abb
Paul Krugman, I know you are but what am I?
39
posted on
04/13/2009 3:52:32 AM PDT
by
Earthdweller
(Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
To: tet68
What planet is he from?
Ferretron.
40
posted on
04/13/2009 3:57:23 AM PDT
by
dancusa
(The word "racist" is a magic shield word that's supposed to stop any dissent.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson