March 12, 2004

KRUGMAN UNPLUGGED

On Australia’s Lateline program, Paul Krugman speaks his mind:

There was actually a kind of revealing moment recently - Bush gave an interview, was more or less dragooned into an interview on Meet The Press and the interviewer said: "Well, what if you lose the election?" And he said: "I'm not going to lose the election."

And the interviewer said: "But what if you do lose?" He said: "I'm not going lose the election." The possibility that they just would not regard it as a legitimate thing if someone else were to take power.

Krugman looked almost as paranoid as he sounded. Here’s the actual exchange between George W. Bush and Meet the Press host Tim Russert:

Russert: Are you prepared to lose?

President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.

Russert: If you did, what would you do?

President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.

What did Krugman expect Bush to say? “I am fully prepared to lose, and if I do, I expect I’ll be sent into exile on the island of Elba”? Among Krugman’s other terrified comments:

The vast right-wing conspiracy isn't a theory, it's quite clearly visible to anyone who takes a little care to do his home work.

Quite a few people as part of the Republican movement have said that God chose Bush to be President. I don't know whether they would accept the idea that mere mortal men should choose for him not to be President for another four years.

I guess we’ll find out when “they” cancel the election and install Bush as God's official President-for-life. Krugman is insane.

Posted by Tim Blair at March 12, 2004 12:49 AM
Comments

I figured about a week or so ago, after his nutty column on Social Security, that Krugman had better stay away from any psychologists lest he find himself foricbly committed to an institution for treatment. I wonder if he's hearing voices? He certainly is sounding like a paranoid schizophrenic. (Of course, his glazed stare doesn't help, either.)

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at March 12, 2004 at 01:01 AM

When I think, I work on East 42nd Street and could go across town and beat some sense in to him....but doggone it, it's Lent. I promised not to abuse the mentally ill.

Posted by: Mark from Monroe at March 12, 2004 at 01:11 AM

If Bush wins a Reagan-over-Mondale or Nixon-over-McGovern-style landslide, look out for the Krugmanites to scream about the whole thing being rigged. They're the ones who aren't going to accept a result they don't like, not the conservatives (save for the Freeper fringe, of course).

Remember what Pauline Kael wrote after the '72 election - she couldn't understand how it happened, since no one she knew voted for Nixon.

Posted by: Damian P. at March 12, 2004 at 01:12 AM

If Bush wins a Reagan-over-Mondale or Nixon-over-McGovern-style landslide, look out for the Krugmanites to scream about the whole thing being rigged. They're the ones who aren't going to accept a result they don't like, not the conservatives (save for the Freeper fringe, of course).

I think the Bush-haters are already planting the seeds for this with their obsession with computerized voting. They think that this will somehow allow Republcans to manipulate the vote. These people couldn't bear to give up their belief that Bush is an illegitimate President so if he wins a decisive victory you can bet they will claim that's how he stole it this time.

As for Krugman, it became obvious just how unhinged he had become when he blamed Malaysian Prime Minister Mohammed Mahathir's anti-semitic speech on Bush.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at March 12, 2004 at 01:43 AM

You know, Dennis Kucinich frequently displays the same confidence toward the (far less likely) event of him winning the Democratic nomination. WHAT IS KUCINICH'S SECRET PLAN FOR TAKING MILITARY CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! CAN HE BE STOPPED?

Posted by: Mike G at March 12, 2004 at 01:43 AM

Well, we've known that the lunatics are running the asylum for a while now.

The worst thing I've heard lately is that Senator Kerry is already plannign to have teams of lawyers prepared to challenge election results. The DNC, no longer content with under the radar voting booth shenanigans has now openly proclaimed that they have no faith in the electoral process. This is a remarkable sign of bad faith on their part.

Oh, and I suppose that the ETA's latest marketing pitch in Madrid is just another matter for the police and inteligence groups to deal with.

Posted by: charles austin at March 12, 2004 at 01:49 AM

If Bush wins, I expect violence. I HOPE that's just an over-reaction to over-heated campaign rhetoric, but I'm just not sure.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at March 12, 2004 at 02:05 AM

"Quite a few people as part of the Republican movement have said that God chose Bush to be President." Huh? If they're Bible believing Christians then of course they think that. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (Matt 10:29, KJV). I'm an atheist, and I think that's a crock, but saying that a Christian believes God rules the Universe is hardly to invoke a sinister theocratic conspiracy.

Posted by: David Gillies at March 12, 2004 at 02:09 AM

I haven't seen this kind of mindless hysteria since the "Y2K scare" crap. Although I do remember the odd right-wing loon predicting that Clinton would use Y2K to declare martial law and cancel the election...

My ex-girlfriend's cute little old Aunt seriously thought Clinton was the Antichrist. We'd just smile and nod. Perhaps that's the way to go here, too.

Posted by: RC at March 12, 2004 at 02:14 AM

I won't worry until I see Bush nominating his horse to represent Texas in the US Senate.

Posted by: ushie at March 12, 2004 at 02:19 AM

RC, are you suggesting that Clinton was not the antichrist? Preposterous.

Posted by: Rob at March 12, 2004 at 02:20 AM

The DNC, no longer content with under the radar voting booth shenanigans has now openly proclaimed that they have no faith in the electoral process.

That reminds me of what Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - WV) said during the HillaryCare debates - "We are going to push through this health care reform regardless of the views of the American people."

Posted by: Roger Bournival at March 12, 2004 at 02:58 AM

Hey -- I thought Gorby was the Antichrist

What with the mark on his forehead and all...

Posted by: Crazy at March 12, 2004 at 03:01 AM

Uh... mark

URLs are such a pain :(

Posted by: Crazy at March 12, 2004 at 03:07 AM

My opinion is that Clinton's not the antichrist, but I'll admit that the jury still may be out on this...

Posted by: RC at March 12, 2004 at 03:35 AM

Good call, ushie. Those of us with classical educations and/or who watched "I, Claudius" understand that there are limits to "George W. Bush is the worst leader EVER" hyperbole.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at March 12, 2004 at 04:07 AM

I'm not even an economist, just a average guy who reads the papar, and every time he launches into an economic argument (presumably his area of expertise) he loses me in about two minutes. He presents such poor logic, such foolish notions that even if one hoped to believe him, even convincing ONESELF would be nearly hopeless.

Posted by: Joe at March 12, 2004 at 04:15 AM

i especially like how krugman is now back to saying that our deficits, coupled with the upcoming social security crisis (remember, last year he said there was a crisis, and only a few weeks ago he said it was not a crisis) will cause a latin american style monetary fallout.

what a douche. he and brad delong aren't fit to teach high school economics, let alone @ the institutions that employ their stupid asses.

Posted by: a at March 12, 2004 at 04:30 AM

The sad thing is that the only thing that would prove them wrong is if Bush loses the election. If he wins, they'll claim it was because Diebold rigged the voting machines.

Posted by: Pat Curley at March 12, 2004 at 04:43 AM

Keep the dart gun handy in case he starts foaming at the mouth, Skippy...

Posted by: mojo at March 12, 2004 at 04:44 AM

Actually, March, to be precise - Krug didn't say SocSec wasn't in crisis. He said basically that if George Bush is president, it's in a crisis; if he's not, it's not.

That's the kind of black-and-white world Paulie the K lives in.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at March 12, 2004 at 05:05 AM

The vast right-wing conspiracy isn't a theory, it's quite clearly visible to anyone who takes a little care to do his home work.

Ohfergodsake. Mr. Krugman has officially been inducted into the Tin Foil Hat Brigade. I'm really disappointed Jones didn't ask him about the PNAC, Skull & Bones and the Illuminati.

Posted by: Spiny Norman at March 12, 2004 at 05:44 AM

Whoah. Crazy like a loon.

Posted by: Quentin George at March 12, 2004 at 06:33 AM

I've heard lefty academics say with a straight face that if Bush loses the election, there'll be a military coup in the U.S. It would be offensive but for the unintentional hilarity.

In line with Damian's Pauline Kael reference, where Krugman works, I'd bet that's a commonplace opinion; not all of his colleagues would agree, but few would be startled or outraged.

Posted by: JPS at March 12, 2004 at 06:42 AM

Can't understand why Australians would care about intelligent Americans outting Bush as a no account low life.

Hey, why not aim for all the candidates. Admit it. None are worthy. Not a one. Except maybe this guy. He shows some chutzpah.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8942060%255E2703,00.html

if the link doesn't work it's because it's an "AUSTRALIAN" news service.

Posted by: IXLNXS at March 12, 2004 at 07:35 AM

Prediction:

In the next few posts, there will then come the troll who will cite the wacked out anti-Clinton conspiracy theories (beginning w/ the UN taking over the nation).

Let it be noted that this is not simply a typical moon-bat w/a web-site or a mimeo machine, however.

This is a top economist, who teaches at one of the nation's top universities, who has been discussed as a likely winner of a Nobel prize in Economics, in The New York Times. So, unless you can point to an NYT or equivalent regular op-ed writer, please spare the hyperbole.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Posted by: Dean at March 12, 2004 at 07:36 AM

It takes a very strange mind to have watched that interview and concluded that that was the most significant thing that Krugman had to say.

Must be a good life when anything you don't want to be true, you don't even hear!

Posted by: Mork at March 12, 2004 at 08:07 AM

Dean,
Economics is bunk. In any case, it is clear that Krugman is one of those unfortunate types who can be very bright in relation to one discipline, but extremely stupid at everything else. In this case he has taken against Mr Bush for some reason, and has ever since attacked the President at every turn. In doing so Krugman, the former Enron adviser, has lied and manipulated the facts to suit his prejudice. Therfore, his rants are hardly the product of scholarship. The phrase that springs to mind is post hoc propter hoc.

Posted by: Toryhere at March 12, 2004 at 08:09 AM

Steve in Houston,

I got the reference but I went to a state school so I learned it from Bob Guccione's "Caligula" starring Malcolm McDowell.

Posted by: JDB at March 12, 2004 at 08:11 AM

One day, John Pilger the next, Krugman, the ABC bias???

Posted by: fred at March 12, 2004 at 08:15 AM

'This is a top economist, who teaches at one of the nation's top universities, who has been discussed as a likely winner of a Nobel prize in Economics, in The New York Times. So, unless you can point to an NYT or equivalent regular op-ed writer, please spare the hyperbole.'

That is exhibit A of how leftish wackoism has replaced real academics and has polluted our institutions of higher learning. Depressing.

Sorry I couldn't supply you with a Clinton conspiracy theory.

Posted by: phil at March 12, 2004 at 08:17 AM

If Bush wins a Reagan-over-Mondale or Nixon-over-McGovern-style landslide, look out for the Krugmanites to scream about the whole thing being rigged.

Here's the responses I foresee from the left:

Landslide for Bush: Proof that the election was rigged, and that the BusHitler regime is so evil -- and thinks the American public is so stupid -- that they don't even bother trying to hide the rigging. (See: the secret PNAC report that the evil neocons don't even bother hiding)

Close victory for Bush: Proof that the election was rigged, but the BusHitler regime was clever enough to make it appear like a close race.

Bush loses: Proof that BusHitler tried to rig the election, but was too stupid to pull it off; cue 2-1/2 months of fearful cowering and foil-hat theorizing about Bush staging a coup to retain office.

Posted by: SpoogeDemon at March 12, 2004 at 08:19 AM

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

who are "they" giving krugman these insane ideas?

google time baby!

Posted by: bt at March 12, 2004 at 08:33 AM

The existence of the Bushwa vast right wing conspiracy (VRWC™) is easy to prove in a similar manner.

If they admit there is a conspiracy to enslave the American people in ant farm-like colonies where they will slave away at making complex machinery for Halliburton Oilfield Equipment Co., aha, then we have them.

If they deny there is a conspiracy afoot to do that, and they deny that they've already fitted us in our sleep for the legirons with which to chain us to giant AUTOCAD milling machines to make said machinery for Halliburton, this is activity consistent with the existence of a conspiracy.

And if no conspiracy is ever found... why this is perfectly consistent, because only a vast and powerful conspiracy encompassing the Administration, the cowardly right wing press like the NY Times, the gutless media whores at CNN and John Lott could cover its tracks so effectively, and scare those with knowledge of it into perpetual silence.

Ergo, Bush is clearly at the head of a gigantic, terrifying VRWC™ and we will all soon be chained to giant lathes and milling machines in a huge Halliburton factory in the Nevada desert, making machines to make Prescott Bush (whose head has been kept alive like Hitler's and Elvis') richer than Croesus.

I'll go cower in the corner with my tinfoil hat on now...

Posted by: Al Maviva at March 12, 2004 at 08:51 AM

Of course the vast right wing conspiracy exists! Find it here!
Scroll down to see the head of this conspiracy...

Posted by: TimT at March 12, 2004 at 08:51 AM

Dean,

Do you mean the FACT that Clinton had Vince Foster killed so that he wouldn't reveal Clinton's complicity in the planned invasion of the US by Chinese UN troops in black helicopters who get their instructions off the backs of highway signs and will haul away the Real Amurricans and Bible-believing Christians in white boxcars so that the ZOG's alien masters at Area 51 can experiment on them to find a way to make all black men impotent with chemtrails?

What? Oh, that's a nice coat. Sleeves are kinda long, though, don't you thi---AAIIIIEEEEE!

Posted by: Angie Schultz at March 12, 2004 at 09:12 AM

I won't worry until I see Bush nominating his horse to represent Texas in the US Senate.

...even if a horse could do a better job than some Senators? (Regardless of state, or era for that matter.)

Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 12, 2004 at 09:43 AM

I'm sorry that Krugman was unleashed on your fine country. I mean, you already have to put up with Robert Fisk, Margot Kingston, etc.

Posted by: Sean M. at March 12, 2004 at 09:50 AM
Krugman is insane.
You just now noticed?

.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at March 12, 2004 at 10:05 AM

In his latest book, The Great Unravelling, the Princeton University economist is calling on President Bush to abandon his program of trillion dollar tax cuts, otherwise, he claims, there may not be enough funds to pay for the waves of baby boomers who will soon retire.

So that's what it's all about, huh? Middle class welfare for a generation going to their graves in the manner to which they became accustomed in the 60s and 70s.

Hand over your cash, Generations X and Y! The Baby Boomers have good taste and that costs money! And they're going to live for a lot longer yet! The party's never over for the Baby Boomers!

Posted by: ilibcc at March 12, 2004 at 10:31 AM

Disagree with you on two things only:

Krugman is not bright at economics as Brookesnew continuously documents.

Some schools of economics like Keynes' are bunk but not the Austrian school of economics `Maainstream economics' follows bunk and bunk is favoured by govts., political parties,some intersts intent on protectionism and subsidies and Alan Greenspan.

Posted by: d at March 12, 2004 at 10:41 AM

Bush to Elba? Best thing you've suggested all year, Tim!

(Mind you, Boney escaped, didn't he?)

Posted by: Nemesis at March 12, 2004 at 10:44 AM

The vast right wing conspiracy exists, the only doubt about it is the 'vast' bit. If you read something like Brocks Blinded by the Right or Blumenthals Clinton Wars they paint a pretty good picture of the organisations and people involved. There's a fair number, but vast is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 11:35 AM

I guess if BushHitler enslaves the human race in making oil drilling equipment for Haliburton and barters the elderly to aliens, then Arnold will be the only capable warrior-president that can free us. But when you remember that he's a republican also, you realize how deep the conspiracy really is.

Posted by: arlo at March 12, 2004 at 11:48 AM

So when the left has strategy meetings,hires people of the same political thinking its all for the good of the little people, Stewart. But when the right does it its sinister conspiracy. I see your much over used equivalency arguments as selective as your tin foil hats,Stewart.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 11:51 AM

Patrick Chester,

I love your work. I nearly peed myself.

Posted by: Fool to Himself & Burden to Others at March 12, 2004 at 12:08 PM

"I won't worry until I see Bush nominating his horse to represent Texas in the US Senate."

that would probably be an improvement.

Posted by: samkit at March 12, 2004 at 12:29 PM

Quotas for minorities.

Vote One Mr Horsey.

Posted by: ilibcc at March 12, 2004 at 01:25 PM

Bush's dogmatic certitude of victory is a little alarming in an open election.

I think that Krugman expected Bush to give a straight answer to the question: what will you do if you lose? retire from politics, get a real job or live with daddy.

Regarding the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, this is used to sound like a left wing paranoid fantasy, but after an unjustified impeachment, stolen election and unlawful war I think that the Left have a point.

The Right have told the truth about both their intention to get rid of the welfare state, but since this is an unpopular (and immoral) policy they have to lie about the means they use to do this ("non-core promises", "tax cuts wont cause deficits").

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 01:35 PM

Gary, there's nothing tin-foil hat about referring to some of the work of the right-wing against Clinton as a conspiracy. It's fact. Well documented by both those inside and outside the organisations involved. If we were talking about the kind of day to day stuff that goes on in politics then using the word conspiracy, with all it's attendant sinister meaning, would be over the top. But what happened to Clinton was a well planned and financed continuous smear campaign and fishing expedition designed to bring down a president no matter what. Calling it a conspiracy is perfectly justified.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 01:38 PM

' ... fishing expedition designed to bring down a president ...'

Plenty went down before the President, Stewart.

Posted by: ilibcc at March 12, 2004 at 01:52 PM

Jack, Stewart, You guys are such tools.

Posted by: Lee at March 12, 2004 at 01:57 PM

Jack Strocchi:

unjustified impeachment? Clinton committed a crime while in office. You may argue about whether what he lied about under oath was worth discussing, but that doesn't set aside the fact that he broke the law.

stolen election? Bush broke no laws during the election, despite what Gore & Co. wanted people to believe. As I recall, the independent media investigation into the "uncounted" ballots determined that Bush was still the victor.

unlawful war? The Coalition in Iraq is there under UN resolution. Just because certain members of the Security Council (members that had financial incentive to see the war postponed or even stopped) changed their minds later, doesn't change the fact that Hussein repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and orders.

Also, tax cuts don't cause deficits. Uncontrolled spending, however, does. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: david at March 12, 2004 at 02:00 PM

Lee, you are ... self-explanatory.

Posted by: Mork at March 12, 2004 at 02:01 PM

mork you are ... parody.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 02:18 PM

Attention Jack and Stewart: the clue train is bearing down on you. You have two choices: jump on board, or get run over. Looks like you've chosen the latter.

Posted by: Big Dog at March 12, 2004 at 02:18 PM

Still following me around, Gary?

It is nice to know that I have a guaranteed audience, even if it's only you. I just wish I attracted a wittier crowd. Or one that knew grammar.

Posted by: Mork at March 12, 2004 at 02:26 PM

Stewart, And Peaceful Tomorrows is such a none partisan caring group.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 02:27 PM

Yes mork, I enjoy sneering and contradicting most things you say. We mite have some thing in common don't you think?.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 02:52 PM

Bush should have said "I'd probably grow a beard and start drinking until I sound like Al Gore."

Posted by: aaron at March 12, 2004 at 02:56 PM

Very little, Gary, I imagine.

Posted by: Mork at March 12, 2004 at 03:01 PM

You imagine a lot don't you?.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 03:38 PM

Using images of bodies being pulled out the WTC rubble to promote an election campaign is poor taste. Regardless of what political form Peaceful Tomorrows members may have that fact doesn't change.

David - Clintons impeachment was unjustified. The US constitution is quite specific that impeachment is to be reserved only for serious crime. Minor perjury in a civil trial doesn't cut it. And how can you claim only 'uncontrolled spending' causes deficits? A deficit is an imbalance between revenue taken in and outgoing spending. By definition it can be caused by either excessive spending, insufficient tax revenue or a mix of both.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 04:12 PM

The whole Clinton thing. Impeachment was legitimate. I thought it was a pretty nasty smear campaign. There were two things I couldn't understand:

1)Why should anyone have to answer such questions?

2)Why doesn't Clinton just refuse to answer and take the consequences?

Years later, I never bothered to confirm this, I've seen it suggested: That previously it was not appropriate to ask such questions. It was Clinton who championed and signed the law allowing such questioning against strong opposition of Reps. The tactic was used for the same reason that Clinton couldn't refuse to answer.

I doubt there was ever any expectation of him being removed from office.

Posted by: aaron at March 12, 2004 at 04:20 PM

>Bush's dogmatic certitude of victory is a little alarming in an open election.

C'mon, Jack, admit it. You've never seen a political campaign in your life.

Posted by: John Nowak at March 12, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Perjury is not minor.

Budgets get out of balance. Just so long as they don't persist; no big deal. The budget's really just a way for the legislatur to screw with monitary policy and measure how much of our resourses the goverment is wasting. Now, where are these deficits borrowed from and what's the interest rate? Oh, the rate varies with size and frequency of deficits. What's the rate, part of inflation? Not to worried about that right now.

Posted by: aaron at March 12, 2004 at 04:39 PM

And Stewart has obviously never seen the Bush campaing ad.

Posted by: aaron at March 12, 2004 at 04:41 PM

david,

You are misinformed about the facts, possibly because you live on another planet which does not comprehend Earth-speak. Every "fact" that you claimed in your pathetic response was demonstrably wrong.
Allow me to rub your nose in it.

The Clinton impeachment was unjustified. It failed to pass in the Senate ie not guilty. It was a perjury entrapment, not a real criminal investigation.

The 2000 election was stolen. This was confirmed by the Civil Rights Commission which
investigated "voting irregularities" (bureaucratic-speak for electoral roll tampering) in that contest. Lets not talk about the Supreme Courts unprecedented abortion of vote counting process.

The Iraq War II was unlawful. It entailed an unprecedented pre-emptive violation of a sovereign nations territory, it did not receive explicit authorisation from the UNSC and it was rationalised to the US Congress on a false claim (non-existent WMDs).

Iraq war was moral. It freed the Iraqis from Hussein, and may set the Arabs on the path to democracy. GW Bush deserves credit for that achievement.

Tax-cuts do cause deficits. Only an idiots like Dick Cheyney believe they dont. Even with the Reagan II/Bush I/Clinton I tax increases, the US Treasury did not come back into surplus until 1998, some 17 years after the original Reagan tax-cut.

And the post-tax increase nineties saw much higher US eco-growth rates. So much for the simple minded idiocies of supply side economics.

If David does not accept these facts then he is an idiot.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 05:28 PM

You are misinformed about the facts, possibly because you live on another planet which does not comprehend Earth-speak. Every "fact" that you claimed in your pathetic response was demonstrably wrong.
Allow me to rub your nose in it.

Thanks, Jack. It's gems like these that just send people running in droves... to your opponent's side.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 12, 2004 at 05:31 PM

Stewart, A couple so seconds in a add is "poor taste"(have you seen the add?) and saying "I was in Vietnam" in 85% of speeches is OK. Selective equivalences indeed!. Nice shift BTW.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 05:52 PM

Patrick Chester

I argued that the Gulf War had a good moral effect - it got rid of Hussein and his mafia. You think that is a bad argument - what are you, some kind of Saddam Hussein groupie?

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 05:52 PM

Jack, you're a moron. You have seriously embarressed yourself. When you spout off nonsense like that, well you make it difficult to consider reading your comments let alone dignifying them with a response. Enjoy you lonely slip into madness.

Posted by: aaron at March 12, 2004 at 05:54 PM

aron

You have seriously "embarressed" [sic] yourself with your empty whining about dignified responses. This is a blog, no place for the feint-hearted. Get with the program you ignorant wimp.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 06:06 PM

Aaron and Patrick - I don't think Jack was trying to persuade David. I assume that he sensibly took the view that anyone capable of sprouting the nonsense that David produced above is unlikely to be moved by the puny tools of rational argument.

On the other hand, those of us who do prefer our arguments to have a factual basis could not help but admire the elan with which he dissected David's idiocy. I'm guessing that was the effect that he intended.

Posted by: Mork at March 12, 2004 at 06:08 PM

"On the other hand, those of us who do prefer our arguments to have a factual basis"

Bwaaahehe!!

Posted by: morks stalker at March 12, 2004 at 06:42 PM

"Stewart, A couple so seconds in a add is "poor taste"(have you seen the add?) and saying "I was in Vietnam" in 85% of speeches is OK. Selective equivalences indeed!. Nice shift BTW." - Gary

Yes, I've seen the advert. Length of time is irrelevant, it's poor taste. If Bush wants to make 9/11 an issue fair enough. But there are ways of doing it without resorting to cheap exploitation of others suffering. Plus I truly don't see how Kerry pointing out his Vietnam service is in any way comparable. Does he use images of burned bodies from the war in his ads, or something that I've not heard about?

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 07:04 PM

Jack wrote, in the heat of the moment, no doubt:

aron

You have seriously "embarressed" [sic] yourself ...

Jack, you're giving grammar classes now as well as history?

Before you pointedly refer to others' spelling errors, check your own: Only an idiots like Dick Cheyney believe they dont.

Posted by: ilibcc at March 12, 2004 at 07:18 PM

"2)Why doesn't Clinton just refuse to answer and take the consequences?" - aaron

Because it may have been taken as an admission of guilt by his wife and daughter, I suspect. Lying protected them. You can argue that if he loved them he wouldn't have cheated, but that's not necessarily true. Many men who genuinely love their families have given into a moment of desire.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 07:18 PM

And to whomever said 'perjury is not minor' - not quite right. Perjury is always judged in the context of the case and to what extent it distorts the courts findings. Consequently perjury can be judged as anything from quite minor to incredibly serious depending on these factors.

Posted by: Stewart Kelly at March 12, 2004 at 07:28 PM

For all you geniuses (genii?) who are patting yourselves on the back for your supposed good work in uncovering "a vast right-wing conspiracy".

Please. Get some perspective. If its as obvious as you seem to think it is, it probably isn't a conspiracy.

You know people can play politics, without it being some sort of sinister meeting of dark and dangerous men in a dark and smokey room.

You don't hear about a vast left-wing conspiracy trying to bring down Republican administrations, do you?

Its an idea as absurb as the previous one.

Posted by: Quentin George at March 12, 2004 at 07:36 PM

Comrade ilibcc quite properly corrects my sloppy punctuation and fragmentary construction, which I fell into in the process of castigating a high-ranking member of the Bush admin.
Of course, which ever way you cut it, Cheyney has completely lost it. Both Republican fo-po top-guns (Powell and Cheyney) were too sick to do their job properly and should have been pensioned off. A Wall Street drone or simply a mannequin plucked from the obscurity of Foggy Bottom would be better than the current crop of "stratergists".
Likewise, I too must strive for improvement, all the better to serve the cause of the Revolution, Party and State.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 07:56 PM

BTW It would not be a good idea to dismiss Krugman as insane.

Everything he has been saying for the past three years has been confirmed by the macro-economic facts (memo to supply siders: consult real world) and the micro-political docs (memo to the RoW: consult Paul O'Neill's on line archives).

It is pretty damning when the top-guns in the Bush admin (Powell and O'neill) confirm the intellectual analysis of its most stringent critic.

It also must be pretty alarming to members of the VRWC that billionaires, Pentagon officers and industrial CEOs are starting to take serious pot-shots at this admin. Kinda like Gloria Steinhem having a go at Clinton.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 08:06 PM

Save your feigned outrage for someone that hasn't read your blog,Stewart. VRWC was proudly adopted to show people like DU,Indy media and your self how far out on the edge they are then laugh at the hysterics it induces.

Posted by: morks stalker at March 12, 2004 at 08:13 PM

It's not alarming at all, Jack - many conservatives have been concerned for quite some time about the Bush spending regime (as conservatives have been about Australian PM Howard's spending); and indeed, about changes to the Constitution (albeit with the very best of intentions).

Bush does not, as many imagine, always get a dream run from those on the conservative end of politics.

Posted by: ilibcc at March 12, 2004 at 09:05 PM

I have never read such insanity, and I don't mean Professor Krugman. Tim Blair corrects Krugman! Either Blair is a deliberate joker or this blog is an insane asylum.

Posted by: Your Joking at March 12, 2004 at 09:28 PM

You bet ilibcc, with all the conspiracy freaks taking up air-time it hard to see the forest though the trees.

Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2004 at 09:34 PM

Ever notice how Jack's writing skills and general coherence deteriorate rapidly after his first post on any subject? Get your proofreader to vette everything you write.

Posted by: John Nowak at March 12, 2004 at 10:04 PM

>Because it may have been taken as an admission of guilt by his wife and daughter, I suspect. Lying protected them.

Oh, I see; he lied under oath to protect two people who were not on trial.

Can you please tell us how in the hell CLinton's purjury protected anyone but himself?

Posted by: John Nowak at March 12, 2004 at 10:13 PM

John Nowak unwisely pops his head above the parapet and promptly gets it blown off:

Ever notice how Jack's writing skills and general coherence deteriorate rapidly after his first post on any subject?

Given the standard of repartee, I am not ashamed to "stoop to conquer".

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 12, 2004 at 10:16 PM

So, Jack, you agree that you get stupider with each post?

How did that "Blow me away," exactly?

John's right! How unwise of him.

Posted by: John Nowak at March 12, 2004 at 11:51 PM

Jack sez: "Bush's dogmatic certitude of victory is a little alarming in an open election."

Oh, I would so vote for a politician who said, "Oh, hell, I don't really think I'll win. So I'm making plans to start collecting stamps and grow orchids in my greenhouse." I mean, haven't you ever listened to a coach or sportstar say, "Yeah, we're gonna kill the other team!" You think the coach or sportstar whow would say, "Ah, you know, it's not whether we win or lose, it's how we'll play the game," would thrill the fans?

Jack sez:"I think that Krugman expected Bush to give a straight answer to the question: what will you do if you lose? retire from politics, get a real job or live with daddy."

I can't do better than the response above about growing a beard and learning to talk like the GoreBot.

Jack also (sigh) sez:"Regarding the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, this is used to sound like a left wing paranoid fantasy, but after an unjustified impeachment, stolen election and unlawful war I think that the Left have a point."

Clinton, who SWORE to uphold the laws of our fucking COUNTRY, LIED under oath. If you cannot see the problem here, then I really cannot help you. The election, you dolt, wasn't stolen, but seriously, please come to fuckin' Florida and help count all the votes from that stupid state after this year's election. And, Goddammit, the day the Fucking Worthless UNSC is given primacy in the US is the day I move to Tanzania.

Stewart sez:"Because it may have been taken as an admission of guilt by his wife and daughter, I suspect. Lying protected them. You can argue that if he loved them he wouldn't have cheated, but that's not necessarily true. Many men who genuinely love their families have given into a moment of desire."

Oh, barf, you immoral freak. Maybe you don't mind a president with no self-inhibitors or morality, but I prefer to have someone with just a tad of decency and self-control in the Oval Office and sitting next to the briefcase with
the nuclear detonation codes.

Posted by: ushie at March 13, 2004 at 03:52 AM

Stewart,

"Because it may have been taken as an admission of guilt by his wife and daughter, I suspect. Lying protected them. You can argue that if he loved them he wouldn't have cheated, but that's not necessarily true. Many men who genuinely love their families have given into a moment of desire."

"Why didn't Clinton refuse to answer" is the question I asked during the process, not after it was found that he was guilty of an affair. It was wrong for the questions to be asked and it was wrong for Clinton to answer, whether he had something to hide or not. I viewed his dodginess (and apparent lying) as more of an admission of guilt.

Posted by: aaron at March 13, 2004 at 04:02 AM

Also, Stewart,

Regarding what you said about my saying "Perjury is not minor". You're right, context is import. I think the impeachment was appropriate regarding the context of who was doing the perjury. It wasn't a excessive: he wasn't forced out of office or put in jail or anything.

Posted by: aaron at March 13, 2004 at 04:14 AM

"Macro-economic facts?" Krugman has been the epitome of wrong on everything. Tax cuts improved the economy. The economy's booming and he's living in 1933. Looks like the clue train ran you down, Jack. Tax cuts work every time they're tried; "supply-side" is how the real world works, not Krugman's fevered imagination.

Posted by: Big Dog at March 13, 2004 at 07:13 AM

I argued that the Gulf War had a good moral effect - it got rid of Hussein and his mafia. You think that is a bad argument - what are you, some kind of Saddam Hussein groupie?

...and Jack loves dishonest responses too. Thanks for clarifying your asshat nature even further. Do continue.

Mork: I read your posting and am reminded of an old tale about an emperor and his new wardrobe.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 13, 2004 at 10:56 AM

Please allow me to join the Jack Strocchi pile-on, because that crass, dishonest Saddam apologist needs his ass kicked a little harder.

Mork, you do yourself no credit to confuse anything he says with facts, even if it furthers your grand Quest To Be Contrary.

To start with Jack's claim that the election was stolen based on the Civil Rights Commission's double top secret report, here's a bit from the Weekly Standard that I dug up regarding that issue:

To begin with, the Commission's conclusion that black voters were nine times as likely as whites to have their votes discarded is based on an inappropriate statistical comparison of the percentage of spoiled ballots in each county with the percentage of African Americans residing in that county. (Ballots, of course, do not identify the race of the voter, so it is only through speculation and rough use of statistics that the Commission can make such a claim at all.) Even assuming, however, that black voters were more likely than white voters to have their ballots discarded, this alone would point nowhere. The critical question--which this report makes no serious attempt to answer--would be why this had occurred. The report irresponsibly implies that the reason is related to race. But it makes no attempt to explain how race might have played any role in the disqualification of anonymous ballots.

Jack also talks about the Supreme Court's abortion of the vote count--when what they really stopped was not the vote count, it was the RECOUNT. In fact, anyone remember WHICH recount it was by that point?

But this is only part of Jack's calvacade of bullshit. I still wish to remind everyone how Jack claimed that Saddam could not be held accountable for the death and suffering of Iraqis due to the sanctions because he had no WMD and the sanctions were therefore "in error". He made this statement in his outrageous argument that the war was a "strategic" AND "moral" failure. This is an important benchmark for how far Jack's head is up his ass, I don't think I'd need to elaborate much about the reason Saddam did not have WMD was the RESULT of the sanctions, which is the kindest thing that could be said for the strategy of containment. It's like claiming that it can't possibly be raining because the ground is wet.

Now Jack is conceeding that the war in Iraq was a moral victory, albeit an "unlawful" one, simply so he can build that handy strawman for anyone who disagrees with him.

A past example of unlawful, yet moral, activity would be those who aided the escape of American slaves in defiance of the institution of slavery. If human law becomes an obstacle to human morality, then the law is flawed, yet Jack somehow references it to bolster his case.

The simple fact that Jack would go so far as to claim a moral success in Iraq while claiming that the action was unlawful betrays his intentions. He's nothing but another "yeah, but" cretin dressed up in pretty words and sly misdirection, mistaking universally accepted intellegence assumptions that turned out to be incorrect with intentional falsehoods.

"Sure," he'll hiss in your ear, "we got a bad guy and that's a good thing, but what about the vassssst right wing conssssspiracy that lead us to unlawful war?" And Mork will hyuck along behind his hand, taking sophmoric glee that no one wants to contest Jack's "facts" because the rest of us are stuck on the obvious point that if it wasn't for the so-called "conspiracy" and its "unlawful war", the "good thing" would never have happened. Not under Kofi "OilForFood" Anan, not under Al "Count Them Until I Win" Gore, not under John "Fellate The French" Kerry.

Jack, you suck.

Posted by: Sortelli at March 13, 2004 at 06:26 PM

A few images are bad taste but calling the POTUS a "traitor" "liar" "crook" etc is politics. Maybe the dems should go for an indictment, like the GOP did?

I think that the reason Kerry screams "smear" every time a republican brings to light his spineless flip-flops and other obvious flaws is that he knows they have something on him, something big, and he's trying to prepare the public—"see, I told you they're smear campaigners."

Along those lines, It's seems pretty fishy that after killing women, children, and one wounded prisoner in Viet Nam (a war crime that earned him the silver star, of course every officer gets one, especially those in the naval infantry—duh), he came back to the states, and in typical gutless Kerry style, blamed the powers that be for all the "war crimes" regular soldiers ("everybody") were supposedly committing on a daily basis.

Of course, you all know what they say about a good offense being the best defense. Still, he's going down and it's going to be ugly.

Posted by: Mike Force at March 13, 2004 at 07:32 PM