I didn't think that was a "spontaneous riot" when it happened--how could it be? It, along with the tea parties, are something Krugman and his ilk find really, truly revolting--American citizens using whatever methods they have available to voice their protest. Shockingly, this means even rich guys (or campaign workers) who wear ties can voice their opinions, too, as well as working-class folks who don't have Paul Krugman's sympathy.
Is he really trying to argue that only "spontaneous" protest is "real" protest? I guess the original tea-partiers just showed up on the deck and noticed a bunch of other guys in Indian dress--coincidentally!
What is it Obama "community organized"--"spontaneous" events?
I don't personally care for the tea party events. I don't really see the point. But unlike Krugman, I don't think it's always gotta be about me, on my terms, when people express themselves. See, Paul, just because someone doesn't have a column in a newspaper, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak.
As for the assertion about debate on issues, the only debates going on with Krugman's liberal buddies is how "spontaneously" they can spend taxpayer money on those who didn't earn it.
Oh, and btw, Paul's columns don't just "spontaneously" appear...
If he could, he'd transform his bogus opinion of other people's politics into a structural impairment of their expression -- enforced by police batons, dogs, fire hoses, and "liberal" application of CS gas.
Krugman's just another parasite on Stalinist political front-groups, another duckspeaker spewing prolefeed.
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?"
I know what you mean. But I am going to go. I believe all movements start somewhere and that bodies count in these things. Personally, I think the label "tea party" allows coverage to be along the lines of "these people don't want to pay taxes. Don't they want the roads, a fire department, a police force?"
However, things are going terribly wrong in this country ... the Constitution and our founding principles are out the window. And we get nothing but lies and perversions. The Bowing Obama incident brought this home to me. That they can calmly lie in the face of a contradictory video, just brings home to me the fact that they've been calmly lying all along.
My letter-writing has been met with silence or form letters proving my letter wasn't even read. Where do I go to change a predatory government, if not to the streets?