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 wasnt 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?"
Did you send this to Krugman? If not you should
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.
Like Hitler in his bunker with Soviet tanks a hundred yards away, the Times still thinks that it controls vast armies of the left, while financial dust falls upon their heads.
Last days produce drinking, licentious and howling madmen roaming the dark corridors.
The thing to keep in mind when considering Paul Krugman is that his purpose at the New York Times is to provide intellectual camoflage for what would otherwise rightly be seen as crude propaganda. In the social circles inhabited by the Times' remaining 15 or 20 readers, a Nobel Prize resting lightly upon the mantle conveys both unquestionable academic stature and unimpeachable character. What the heck: it worked for Al Gore, he of the drowning polar bears and inexorably rising seas.