Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are?

[There Is No Spoon]

The Amnesia Candidate
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 22, 2012

Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.

But the question was raised with particular force last week, when Mr. Romney tried to make a closed drywall factory in Ohio a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failure. It was a symbol, all right — but not in the way he intended.

First of all, many reporters quickly noted a point that Mr. Romney somehow failed to mention: George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was president when the factory in question was closed. Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obama for his predecessor’s policy failure?

Yes, it does. Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect. So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.

... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/opinio....html?_r=2

[jaxx]

Willard hopes we are as stupid as the bushco policy loving wingnuts who follow him. It's his turn and he's going to kiss those asses till his lips fall off.

I liked this little bit of info in the article:

Quote:70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.

When Willard goes on his jobs benders, this is fact that will make him stutter.

Aside here.....when I turned on the tv today the first person I heard was Willard ranting somewhere. His voice was shaking (getting the Santorum low, gravely sound when he got going on a "moral" issue), he was stuttering in his hurry to get it all out. The man seems to be fraying at the seams.

[azmouse]

We should keep a thread open just to list and document all of Romney's lies leading up to the general election.

Does DFP have enough bandwidth to handle a thread that enormous?

[janedrake]

I absolutely agree with the points Krugman makes about Romney's completely dishonest strategy... BUT...

I absolutely don't agree with Krugman that the President could have done anything differently in the political environment of early 2009 (we didn't get 60 votes in the Senate until April 2009, I believe, when Norm Coleman was finally stopped in his quest to hold up Al Franken' senate seat win) - nor that the administration "rested on its laurels" or that it "pivoted" solely to the topic of deficit-reduction at the expense of job creation. Those paragraphs almost ruin the rest of the piece for me.

With Krugman, it always seems to be a battle of the "Good Krugman" vs. the "Evil Krugman" - the evil Krugman being the one who delights in perpetuating firebagger nonsense.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-23-2012 09:22 AM)janedrake Wrote:  I absolutely agree with the points Krugman makes about Romney's completely dishonest strategy... BUT...

I absolutely don't agree with Krugman that the President could have done anything differently in the political environment of early 2009 (we didn't get 60 votes in the Senate until April 2009, I believe, when Norm Coleman was finally stopped in his quest to hold up Al Franken' senate seat win) - nor that the administration "rested on its laurels" or that it "pivoted" solely to the topic of deficit-reduction at the expense of job creation. Those paragraphs almost ruin the rest of the piece for me.

With Krugman, it always seems to be a battle of the "Good Krugman" vs. the "Evil Krugman" - the evil Krugman being the one who delights in perpetuating firebagger nonsense.

I disagree. I had no problem with him adding a little "this" with "that" - its not like he's equivocating like CNN does, it's a reasonable point of criticism.

[Velleity]

(04-23-2012 09:22 AM)janedrake Wrote:  I absolutely agree with the points Krugman makes about Romney's completely dishonest strategy... BUT...

I absolutely don't agree with Krugman that the President could have done anything differently in the political environment of early 2009 (we didn't get 60 votes in the Senate until April 2009, I believe, when Norm Coleman was finally stopped in his quest to hold up Al Franken' senate seat win) - nor that the administration "rested on its laurels" or that it "pivoted" solely to the topic of deficit-reduction at the expense of job creation. Those paragraphs almost ruin the rest of the piece for me.

With Krugman, it always seems to be a battle of the "Good Krugman" vs. the "Evil Krugman" - the evil Krugman being the one who delights in perpetuating firebagger nonsense.

I don't speak for Professor Krugman but I do regularly read his blog and I feel that my economics training affords me some insight into where he's coming from.

I don't think it's "good vs. evil" Krugman. I think he's on board 100%. You will not see him endorse the current "conservative" or Republican iterations and it's doubtful that either the ideology or political party will come around to a point where Krugman would endorse either.

I don't think Krugman is willing to compromise his opinion as to what he thinks we need to do to recover from the depression caused by "conservative" stupidity. What Krugman thinks we need to do is fiscal stimulus, way more than we had, and he has a winning argument there. He seems to me to be allowing for the fact that President Obama has been obstructed, but still unwilling to let President Obama totally off the hook.

I actually think that's fair. Whether we like it or not presidents are judged by what happens on their watch regardless of fault. And too, as much as I like President Obama (and I don't find a bigger fan) good economic policy is, I'm afraid, more important than he is.

I am actually shocked at how well "conservatives" are doing in terms of resurrecting their zombie ideology so the battle continues and there's a lot at stake. Their Paul Ryan budget really is a Trojan Horse.

[NJMaverick]

overestimating the stupidity and ignorance of the American public

[Velleity]

(04-23-2012 10:46 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  overestimating the stupidity and ignorance of the American public

And in Romney's case he only has to appeal to the stupid, ignorant, and the people like him who are scamming the stupid and the ignorant.

[janedrake]

TINS and Velleity - I take your points, but am not as willing to give Krugman a pass. He's brilliant (obviously) on economics, but he can sometimes be completely wrong in how he assesses the real-world politics of a situation.

[Velleity]

(04-23-2012 11:05 AM)janedrake Wrote:  TINS and Velleity - I take your points, but am not as willing to give Krugman a pass. He's brilliant (obviously) on economics, but he can sometimes be completely wrong in how he assesses the real-world politics of a situation.

I don't give him a pass on anything. I believe I am understanding where he is coming from.

[KonaKane]

This is absolutely pro forma for the man. Remember that he is a child of privilege and entitlement. For them, the rules don't apply. Laws don't apply. Not even reality applies. From the photo of him playing on the surf on Easer Sunday (something a devout Mormon, which he claims he is, would NEVER do) to reshaping reality with his lies and expecting you to believe him, every move from this guy conforms to his title of privilege.

[janedrake]

Fine, Velleity - but I just happen to believe that where Krugman's coming from often serves to dampen Democratic voters' enthusiasm whether he intends it to or not.

For instance, Krugman is always harping on how the fiscal stimulus should have been bigger regardless of whether or not there was the Congressional will to get a larger stimulus passed. Even now, he's doing the same thing. An aside comment acknowledging the "political restraints" of 2009 isn't the same as acknowledging that a larger stimulus and other items on Krugman's wish list in reality did not have the votes needed to pass the Senate.

Instead of giving Obama credit for actually negotiating the three Republican votes he needed to get the Recovery Act passed, Krugman still frames his discussion in terms of "disappointment," even going so far as to say the WH went on to rest on its laurels, etc. I happen to see that as complete nonsense and so, can't find myself reading Krugman's political observations without a grain of salt.

[Velleity]

(04-23-2012 12:20 PM)janedrake Wrote:  Fine, Velleity - but I just happen to believe that where Krugman's coming from often serves to dampen Democratic voters' enthusiasm whether he intends it to or not.

He's an academic economist. It's his job to offer his honest, scholarly opinion on economic issues regardless how it affects Democrats. He has said as much, saying he could never accept a political appointment for that exact reason.

I don't think we want Professor Krugman to be the equivalent of a FoxPAC. Do we?

Quote:For instance, Krugman is always harping on how the fiscal stimulus should have been bigger regardless of whether or not there was the Congressional will to get a larger stimulus passed. Even now, he's doing the same thing. An aside comment acknowledging the "political restraints" of 2009 isn't the same as acknowledging that a larger stimulus and other items on Krugman's wish list in reality did not have the votes needed to pass the Senate.

The fiscal stimulus should have been greater, and he has given his reasons in great detail. I don't think there is even a valid counter-argument.

The fact that President Obama has been obstructed is "an aside."

Quote:Instead of giving Obama credit for actually negotiating the three Republican votes he needed to get the Recovery Act passed, Krugman still frames his discussion in terms of "disappointment," even going so far as to say the WH went on to rest on its laurels, etc. I happen to see that as complete nonsense and so, can't find myself reading Krugman's political observations without a grain of salt.

I could point you to a few thousand people who are way more malicious than Paul Krugman. If he was the worst "problem" we had we'd be way, way better off than we are right now.

[KonaKane]

Well put, Velleity. We have to get off this kick of going into snap enemy mode with anyone who has the slightest criticism of Obama, or lacks the proper "enthusiasm" with a policy choice. The facts, and some intelligent analysis, usually favor Obama anyway so there is no need to be alienating people who are mostly on our side for those reasons.

[janedrake]

Velleity - here's the counter-argument on the fiscal stimulus - the votes were not there. So why does Krugman keep harping on it. He knows the president didn't institute the stimulus and other recovery measures by fiat - the congressional votes had to be there. So, even acknowledging the "political restraints" of 2009 doesn't cut the continued sniping from Krugman about what should have been done, when the votes were not there to do it.

In any case, I started out being a huge Krugman fan, but he lost me with what I see as his determined streak of being unable to separate what is politically achievable from what is intellectually ideal. And the way he chooses to couch this by sniping at Obama is very frustrating. Look at this article, he wastes no opportunity to remind us all as to why he's so disappointed with Obama. Fine, he's entitled to his opinion, and we're all entitled to our opinion about his opinion.

[There Is No Spoon]

Once again, completely disagree - we need to be able to accept a certain amount of criticism and Krugman is far from being over the top 95% of the time. I respect somebody who isn't afraid to push our side harder - we're certainly not perfect!

I think Velleity said it best and in a very fair way too.

[janedrake]

TINS - my problem with Krugman is that oftentimes his criticism isn't fair, and I know I'm in the minority of his readers on that.

Edited to add: This is not about "accepting a certain amount of criticism" for me - it's about, even if it comes from Krugman, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fair criticism.

[jaxx]

(04-23-2012 02:26 PM)janedrake Wrote:  TINS - my problem with Krugman is that oftentimes his criticism isn't fair, and I know I'm in the minority of his readers on that.

Edited to add: This is not about "accepting a certain amount of criticism" for me - it's about, even if it comes from Krugman, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fair criticism.

I don't read Krugman for that very reason.

[sandnsea]

Face it, we're stupid. That's how the GOP gets away with it.

[KonaKane]

Krugman is a commentator, not an advocate. We are an advocacy site here, so there is going to be friction for obvious reasons.

[janedrake]

(04-24-2012 04:20 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Krugman is a commentator, not an advocate. We are an advocacy site here, so there is going to be friction for obvious reasons.

I can't agree with that. To let Krugman "get away with" this fact-free ramble:

"Even given the political constraints, the administration did less than it could and should have in 2009, especially on housing. Furthermore, Mr. Obama was an active participant in Washington’s destructive “pivot” away from jobs to a focus on deficit reduction.

And the administration has suffered repeatedly from complacency — taking a few months of good news as an excuse to rest on its laurels rather than hammering home the need for more action. It did that in 2010, it did it in 2011, and to a certain extent it has been doing the same thing this year too. "

-- isn't a matter of advocacy vs. non-advocacy in my book. It's a matter of calling out nonsense where it appears. The flip side of this conversation, I believe, is that there are certain liberal commentators whose pronouncements are considered unimpeachable. Krugman is on that short list, Maddow often appears there, too -- but they are indeed capable of getting it very wrong sometimes -- and I'm just not willing to "pooh-pooh" that.

[KonaKane]

Let's put it another way.

Imagine that Krugman had published a gushing pro-Obama piece, similiarly laden with "fact free" flow of information. Do you think Krugman would be getting hammered on DFP? Of course not. Because, as I said, we are an advocacy site.

I make no apologies for being an advocate. I just think we owe it to ourselves to admit to being advocates, and remain careful not to allow the verve of that advocacy to toss the babies out with the bathwater regarding those who are generally on our side of the fight. At the risk of raising Frankenstein's monster, we have done that in the past with the likes of Michael Moore, Matt Damon and a few others.

[janedrake]

I hear you, KonaKane... BUT....

Personally, I believe Michael Moore, Matt Damon, et al. deserve all the grief they've been given and more. They really talked some smack - especially Michael Moore giving out wrong info about the healthcare reform bill during the HCR debates (he said there would be no help for anyone until 2014, and that the bill was dooming people to die in the streets). It's precisely because many generally take the word of Moore, Krugman, etc. for it on any given subject with regard to Democrats, that it makes me see red (so to speak) when they present their opinion as fact. They're all in a financial place where, let's face it, it doesn't matter who is in power - none of them have to worry about ever missing a meal again. When they present their opinion as fact, and people listen to them, and then decide to sit on their hands come voting time because "there's no difference, anyway," to me, that adds up to a Tea Party-controlled House.

I would rather have a small contingent of full-throated supporters of Democrats out there who understand how to offer constructive criticism, rather than those who when they are defending you do almost more damage to you than your opponents.

I believe the whole "holding the feet to the fire" thing that Moore, Krugman, Damon, et al. practice so wholeheartedly should work both ways!

[There Is No Spoon]

Stoke up the fire...

[KonaKane]

Holding someone's feet to the fire for their words is one thing. Pitching them headlong into the fire body and soul, is an entirely different thing.

[janedrake]

(04-24-2012 07:56 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  Holding someone's feet to the fire for their words is one thing. Pitching them headlong into the fire body and soul, is an entirely different thing.

Do you really think that's what I'm doing by criticizing Krugman?

[KonaKane]

(04-24-2012 08:15 PM)janedrake Wrote:  Do you really think that's what I'm doing by criticizing Krugman?

No, but it does happen here. It's a slippery slope, upon which I like to throw a little sand on the ice now and again.

[janedrake]

Okay. I take your point.