Krugman Bashes Obama: 'Who is This Bland Timid Guy Who Doesn’t Stand for Anything?'
On the same day a new poll found only 37 percent of liberals strongly approve of Barack Obama's performance as president, the New York Times's Paul Krugman bashed America's chief executive for being missing in action.
"What have they done with President Obama?" asked the Nobel Laureate. "Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular":
I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.
Isn't it fascinating? The Democrats control the White House and the Senate, but now that Republicans are in charge of the House, the President is hamstrung to get anything done.
Shouldn't that mean that in the final two years of the Bush presidency, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, whatever happened in those two years should be blamed on them? Say, for instance, a financial crisis that led to a recession and exploding debt?
Of course not. The laws of civics don't apply when there's a Republican in the White House. But that's as much a constant in our lives as Krugman making silly comments:
Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.
And bear in mind that this was just the first of several chances for Republicans to hold the budget hostage and threaten a government shutdown; by caving in so completely on the first round, Mr. Obama set a baseline for even bigger concessions over the next few months.
What's fascinating here is that if Krugman really wanted to bash his president, he could remind readers that the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress could have averted all of this last year by passing a budget of their own.
Nowhere in the Nobel laureate's column did he mention this inconvenient truth. Too bad, for that in reality was the truly hapless play by Obama, one that he's largely gotten a pass for from his fans in the media.
Now the narrative has indeed changed to one of budget cuts rather than increases, and this could have easily been prevented if Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would have immediately put forth a budget after the healthcare reform legislation was passed last May.
Instead, they decided it wouldn't be prudent to do so with elections coming up in November, and now the dynamic in D.C. has radically changed as a result:
But let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38 billion in spending cuts — and a much larger cut relative to his own budget proposals — was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea?
As Reagan would say, there you go again.
It seems whenever possible, Krugman wants to spin his yarn about government spending creating jobs. This of course ignores the immutable fact that outlays have risen 41 percent in the past four years as unemployment has doubled from 4.4 percent to 8.8 percent.
How's that government spending creates jobs thing workin' for yah, Mr. Krugman?
Of course, it never works. From 1929 to 1939, annual government spending tripled from roughly $3 billion to $9 billion. Did it help?
Hardly. The unemployment rate was 3.2 percent in 1929. Having peaked at roughly 25 percent in 1933, it was still at 17.2 percent at the end of 1939.
No matter how many times liberals try to spend us out of a recession, it never works. All it does is explode the national debt.
This time's no different, and Krugman is now officially concerned the president he supports has lost that spending feeling:
I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.
Makes you almost want to cry, doesn't it?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Answer: You are Krug. You and
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:32am.
Answer: You are Krug. You and the rest of the lefty media. Good choice.
Loving it.
Submitted by Morganfrost on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:40am.
NY Times lefties savaging a left-wing president, as the country continues its swing to the right, and Republicans secure billions in spending cuts from grumpy, defeatist Democrats. It's like some beautiful dream...
Coming up next
Submitted by another_old_veteran on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:47am.
Soon the Krugmeister will have a real reason to cry in his beer. The debt limit and next budget will have significant consequences aimed at getting things under control.
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton C. Arp
But Paul
Submitted by rockyracoon on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:56am.
He's the MESSiah you've been waiting your whole life for. And to top it off, you both received a Nobel Prize w/o doing anything spectacular to earn one.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
But Paul
Submitted by rockyracoon on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:56am.
He's the MESSiah you've been waiting your whole life for. And to top it off, you both received a Nobel Prize w/o doing anything spectacular to earn one.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
What Happened to Obama?
Submitted by saw the light on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:00am.
Meaning, where is the president and why doesn't he take a stand? I know.
He's voting PRESENT!!!!
Just like everything he has done in his entire life, he absolutely cannot take a stand. He follows the crowd and vacillates like a fan.
And don't get me started on the whole "greatest orator" thing. As one other poster stated, watching him give a speech (with the teleprompter, of course - don't leave home without it) is like watching the world's slowest tennis match.
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to "Joe the Plumber"
'Unvetted'
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:29am.
Krugman - you, and David Brooks, and EVERY other leftist media tool out there are responsible for this. The ruin that Obama has wrought, the world unrest he has caused with his inexperience, the death and destruction that his disastrous policies have brought to pass can ALL be laid directly at your feet.
The blood that has been spilled because of him is on YOUR hands. The lost freedoms he has destroyed are on your heads. The out of control spending, the looming staglation, the civil strife and uproar are all on YOU. The 'torches and pitchforks' that Obama said only he could save you from? They're coming, buddy. They're coming for you.
Why? Because you leftist media types whored yourselves for Obama's campaign. You were so eager for a Democrat president. Not just a Democrat, he had to be black. He had to be young, hip and 'cool'. He had to be your wet dream fantasy Democrat. A 'clean articulate' black man who 'could speak with a negro dialect (when he wanted to) and who had a 'crisp, clean crease in his pants which proves he is ready to rule the world'.
If you media b@$tards had done your blasted jobs and VETTED Obama, you could have prevented him from ever reaching the primaries. You knew he was a child. You KNEW he was unqualified. You knew he was nothing but a stuffed suit with no qualifications, no skill, no personality, no leadership and no brains. You KNEW, liberal media. You KNEW. And you covered up for him. You ran interference for him. You deliberately withheld the facts about this disaster of a man from the public, because you were so desperate to have your cute little black Democrat in the white house. You should have investigated him. Exposed him. Vetted him. But you covered up for him, and now the nightmarish truth about your candy-coated rose-colored liberal policies are exposed as the failures that they always were.
And now you have the GALL to start snivelling and whining about the consequences of the cover-up you wilfully engaged in? Now that your man-child is reveling himself to be the walking disaster that he always was, you have the GALL to act surprised?
You liberal media jerks wet your beds - now you have to sleep in it.
Don't worry - in 2012 we'll fix things. Once Obama and his cabal of corrupt 'czars' are cast out, we will vote intelligent and responsible people into power who will fix this mess that you created, and we'll do it without your help. Just do the right thing for once you liberal media retards - and get the heck OUT of the way. You have proved once and for all the old truth: 'It is better (for the liberal media) to be SILENT and to be thought of as fools, rather than to open their foul mouths and removed all doubt.'
Bravo
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:49pm.
Bravo
Ronald Reagan
I don't get what comrade Krugster and his lefty cohorts...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:42am.
...are getting their boxers in a bunch over and crying about when it comes to Obama.
Obama's Marxist agenda train is rolling right along, and the House repubs are doing little more than standing along the track and shooting spit balls at it.
They haven't even managed to slow it down, much less stop or reverse it.
Is it because they don't think Obama is destroying this country fast enough?
What?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He's lost that lovin' feeling.....
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:47am.
Not communist enough for you Paul? None of the vigor of Lenin and Stalin?
Krugman - leave it to natural economic cycles..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:30pm.
Perhaps this is too simplistic; however, I'll go after both sides here a bit.
When the the R's are in power and there is an economic downturn/recession - it's stimulus via mostly tax cuts.
When the D's are in power and there is an economic downturn/recession - it's stimulus via mostly spending.
Thinking of the past two cycles. Both followed historic bubbles (dot.com and housing, respectively).
Note that respective recoveries, for both, which included meaningful job growth and revenue growth, especially during the first 2-3 years was not, and is not, to be found.
A more painful note here, is that during Bush's weak recovery - 2002 and 2003 - we were experiencing a powerful housing bubble - fueling 1/3 of all jobs created. Without that, what would have been?
Something more troubling than the short term policies of a Clinton, a Bush, or an Obama is at play in these boom, recession, and anemic recoveries are at play here - something structurally underlying our economy.
The traveling road show of Simpson/Bowles and the interjection of Paul Ryan have opened up a starting point in the conversation. It will need to progress to new and unexplored areas.
Note that we don't have the freedom that Reagan had in the early 1980's - the debt picture has changed, along with a new play ground in a new more technological based world economy.
Obama is stuck in the past.
(;~> gary
The belated question
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:51pm.
The answer to Krugman's question is that Obama is the very same man they elected. Unless Krugman can point to some aspect of Obama's performance in the past and find a change, then he must accept that Obama is now the same man he enthusiatically voted for in 2008. He will never be better than he is now.
The question is coming two years too late.
Who is he?
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:59pm.
He is your hero,leader and object of your sexual desire.
To Slyrr, that is as good a rant as I have heard in a while.
Submitted by daddysyk on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 4:07pm.
Would you mind if I used your words - citing your screen name as a source? That is as clear an indictment as I have read about the gross negligence of the media in vetting their boy wonder.