Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 32 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of- Donald Luskin is threatening to sue Atrios. I think Paul Krugman is a DNC party hack, a cretin and a general creep, so I like Luskin’s work following his every move. But threaening to su Atrios is idiotic to the Nth degree.
Grow up.
Comments are closed.
OMG PERMALINKS
This is going to be horribly delicious. For the good of the Big Stick, and the good of the Alliance, I’m going to permalink my adze off. Ready? 1… 2… 3… GO!! I’m shufflin’ through the Texas sand, but my…
Libel suit?
I don’t read Atrios, and I have not read the materials in question, but I think it’s a little overboard for Mr. Donald Luskin, a person who makes his living off the First Amendment, to threaten legal action about libel…
dwight meredith
John, a cretin is a person with a marked mental deficiency. You may not like Krugman’s politics and you may think that he is shrill or partisan or whatever, but if you think he is stupid, you are deluding yourself. Stupid people do not win the Clark Medal.
The Mighty Reason Man
“Paul Krugman is a DNC party hack, a cretin and a general creep”
Careful there, Cole, that’s sounding a little bit Luskin-esque, and despite your twisted admiration for Don, that’s most definitely not a compliment.
John Cole
OK. I went overboard. He isn’t a cretin. He is a creep.
And I don;t have a ‘twisted admiration’ for Luskin- I just like the fact that someone is keeping an eye on all of Krugman’s lies. He is no doubt a great economist- there is also no doubt he is a party hack.
Terry
For a so-called brilliant economist, Krugman hasn’t been particularly accurate or prescient in his discussions of the US economy. As with his absurd formulations about the recent remarks of the infamous anti-semit, Mahathir Mohamad, Krugman increasingly lets his shrill and visceral hatred of all things Bush get in the way of the objective portion of his intellect.
The Mighty Reason Man
“there is also no doubt he is a party hack.”
Because it’s utterly impossible that he actually, you know, thinks Bush is wrong.
It couldn’t be that maybe you HAVE to believe that Krugman’s just a party hack, because otherwise his superb credentials would force you to argue economics with a guy who many consider to be on the short list for the Nobel Prize on any given year, or (gasp!) consider that maybe he’s right?
“I just like the fact that someone is keeping an eye on all of Krugman’s lies”
I wouldn’t say that around someone who knows anything about economics. Read around a little bit (and I don’t mean InstaPundit) – the general consensus among the economists in the blogosphere (except perhaps the supply-side fanatics) is that Krugman slaps Luskin around like a little girl whenever he takes the time to actually respond to him.
John Cole
MRM- Do you intentionally argue disingenuously? If Krugman stuck to economics, I would never bother with him- there are plenty of economists out there that I never pay attention to. I am bothered by Krugman’s weekly forays into Bush’s motives, in which he is always attributing malicious intent as the driving force behind policies Krugman doesn’t like.
I don;t have to have an opinion on Krugman’s economic prowess to recognize a party hack. Paul Begala I believe was an English and History major in college. I don’t care about his opinions on Shakespeare, but I do recognize he is a party hack.
The Mighty Reason Man
Terry-
Speaking of slapping people around like little girls, Daniel Davies did just that the other day to people foolish enough to call Krugman anti-semitic (or imply it, as you do) over that article. Make sure you read the comments.
And I suggest you stop using the word “shrill” when referring to Krugman, because, due to the consistent, cult-like use of that adjective by people who hate Krugman, it makes you look like someone who can’t formulate original opinions and needs to have them spoonfed to him by others. And don’t want people to think that of you, now do you?
Actually, given your fallback onto the stale “Bush-hatred” theme, nevermind.
Terry
How very witty and droll of you, “The Mighty Reason Man.” I certainly never called Krugman an anti-Semite; I criticized him for his absurd rationalizations about the Mahathir remarks in the context of yet one more whack at Bush. I was not the only one. And I really doubt that anyone who would select a pseudonym such as yours should be talking about “slapping people around like little girls.”
The Mighty Reason Man
Cole-
“If Krugman stuck to economics, I would never bother with him- there are plenty of economists out there that I never pay attention to.”
Just for you Cole, to clear up the impression that I’m being disingenuous, here’s a brief Krugman history, from someone who’s actually read most of his columns:
In the beginning, Paul Krugman had a column for Slate and occasionally for Fortune. His articles showed that he was rather apolitical, paying attention to politics only inasmuch as they affected his area of expertise. He was, by any reasonable standard, a moderate, pissing all over supply-siders while vehemently advocating free trade.
Then, he got his NYTimes column, and a short time later campaign 2000 swung into full gear.
As an economist, he was appalled by Bush’s claims about his tax cut plan- not because he hated Republicans, but because as a professional economist, he could easily see that Bush was lying about what was and was not possible.
After that, he began paying more and more attention to Bush, and the more he did, the less impressed he was.
You may not like it, but all of the negative columns Krugman writes about Bush stem from an economic issue, and Krugman’s realization that George Bush really does tell lies.
As a sidenote, is there a single high-profile columnist out there (aside from actual specialty columnists) who writes about one subject and one subject only? Not a very popular one, I would expect, because it’s hard to sustain interest in someone who writes about the same damn thing week after week. So let’s knock off the bullshit about being incensed that Krugman dares write about subjects other than economics, shall we?
Sidenote the Second: It is fair to call Begala a party hack because he actually, you know, worked for the party. Krugman has never been in the employ of the Democratic party in any way, shape, or form. You seem to be under the impression that regular disagreement with Bush makes one a party hack. Would it then be acceptable for me, using the same brand of logic, to refer to you as a GOP party hack? Somehow I don’t think it would.
The Mighty Reason Man
Terry-
Congratulations on being the 537th person to think themselves clever for mocking my pseudonym! Because it is in no way an obviously ironic bit of self-parody that I selected preciesly because it was over the top. Perhaps I should change it to “The Smartest Man in The Whole Universe Ever” so that the joke doesn’t go over the heads of people like you?
For the record, I never said you accused Krugman of anti-semitism- I said you implied it, and going strictly by the wording of your first post, you did, although perhaps it was unintentional.
“I was not the only one”
Indeed you weren’t. Feel free to read the comments section of the link I posted earlier, and you can see some of the others be made to look very foolish by D-Squared.
The short version: Krugman didn’t defend the Mahathir’s remarks, he explained the reasons why such remarks were politically necessary in Malaysia (the vast majority of industry in Malaysia is owned by the Chinese minority, and the extremely poor Muslims that make up the vast majority of the population tend to tear down the government and massacre the Chinese if they aren’t occasionally told that the Jews — not the Chinese — are responsible for their lack of wealth and power). Krugman’s argument (that certain actions of this administration [such as the lackluster response to the Boykin episode] have riled up the Muslim population of some countries and so leaders like Mahathir need to take certain steps to keep them in check), while you may not agree with it, a legitimate line of inquiry, not just random Bush-bashing. Hell, I don’t even agree with the column, but, like I said, it’s a legitimate line of inquiry – especially given Krugman’s firsthand knowledge of Malaysia.
HH
Partisan Krugman
Terry
This last post is utter nonsense in terms of the remark that Krugman comes to all of his views on Bush through the prism of “economics.” A very substantial percentage of his columns have nothing whatsoever to do with economics; they are often personal attacks on the President or individuals around him. And as to “lies,” Krugman has yet to document any. What he refers to as “lies” are seldom more than differences of interpretation about some issue. On the other hand, the list of Krugman lies is voluminous and includes his several columns on Harken Energy over a year ago, his discussion of the Bush partnership arrangements relative to the Texas Rangers, and the list goes on and on.
John Cole
Ok- Lemme run through this again.
– We can’t use the word shrill because other people have used it when discussig Krugman.
– We are not allowed to determine from our own readings that Krugman is parroting the DNC line because all of Krugman’s opinions are formed through the neutral prism of ‘economics.’
– Someone can not be a party hack unless, according to the MRM, they have officially been employed by the party.
Are there any other parameters to the debate that you would like to define?
Krugman is a DNC party hack- paid or unpaid. He is Molly Ivins with a specialty. You worship him and call him a moderate. Good for you.
The Mighty Reason Man
Cole-
Ho ho. I certainly do have another parameter of the debate I would like to define: Don’t completely change things I say and then be proud of yourself for refuting them.
In order:
– “We can’t use the word shrill because other people have used it when discussig Krugman.”
You most certainly can, but it;s like making a masturbation joke about PeeWee Herman. It’s been done, and done, and done. And then it’s been done some more.
– “We are not allowed to determine from our own readings that Krugman is parroting the DNC line because all of Krugman’s opinions are formed through the neutral prism of ‘economics.'”
I of course said no such thing. What I DID say was that Krugman’s major impression of Bush (a liar) was formed due to a lie Bush told that, given Krugman’s profession, he was easily able to recognize it as a lie. This colors his subsequent commentary on Bush. You may not like it, but when you know someone has lied in the past about something important, you tend to be extremely cautious about his future statements.
-“Someone can not be a party hack unless, according to the MRM, they have officially been employed by the party.”
Seriously, you really are smarter than that John. Who’s being disingenuous now? I merely made it clear that the parrallel you drew between Begala and Krugman is flawed because of a crucial difference between them.
I notice you didn’t answer my question: Can I call you a GOP party hack for liking and defending Bush? And if not, why is Krugman a party hack for disliking and attacking Bush? Help me out here, Cole.
“You worship him and call him a moderate.”
I like him; I appreciate his ability to translate complex economic issues into 750-word columns that a layperson can comprehend. And as someone who dislikes Bush, I heartily approve of the subjects of his columns. Saying I worship him, however, is both incorrect and a cheap little rhetorical trick that makes it look like I am irrational in my defense of the man. Good job with that.
As for his being moderate, please point out two positions that Krugman takes that could be described as far-Left (Caveat: “Disagreeing with Republicans” does not count). This question is of course fair because, assuming you were telling the truth, you’ve read quite a bit of Krugman’s work and have a good enough working knowledge of it to label it a “parroting of the DNC line”.
Terry-
“in terms of the remark that Krugman comes to all of his views on Bush through the prism of “economics.””
You are misinterpreting what I said. Please refer to my response to Cole.
“And as to “lies,” Krugman has yet to document any. What he refers to as “lies” are seldom more than differences of interpretation about some issue. On the other hand, the list of Krugman lies is voluminous”
You realize that this is just a very prolix version of “I know you are but what am I”, don’t you? “Krugman is wrong when he calls Bush a liar, but I am right when I call Krugman a liar.”
You’ll excuse me if I require a bit more convincing.
“they are often personal attacks on the President or individuals around him”
For the record, let us be clear on one thing: It is a “personal attack” when Luskin calls Krugman a “humonculous.” It is NOT a personal attack when Krugman adamantly disagrees with something George Bush says/does/endorses. See the difference?
Disagree with Krugman all you like, but your implication that he has written column upon column of baseless ad hominems against the President is simply incorrect.
Luskin, on the other hand….
Terry
A dialogue with The Mighty Morphin Ranger, or whatever, is pointless. The comments of former New York City mayor, Ed Koch, on the infamous Paul Krugman column apply as well to the blogger with aspirations of wit: They’re both “…lame-brained.”
Andrew Ian Dodge
Sueing is pretty damn stupid I agree.
Ricky
Oh, jeez, now I’v seen everything…someone defending Paul Krugman against the label “partisan hack”? BWAHAHAHAA!
Almost as ludicrous as labeling him & atrios ‘moderates’.
John Cole
YEah- that one still kills me- Atrios is a moderate.
John Cole
MRM- OF course he is able to condense things into uder 750 words- in essence he is actully only using two wors per column, as it is always some varation of:
“Bush Evil”
“Bush Stupid”
“Bush Dumb”
“Bush Bad”
“Bush Warmonger”
“Bush Enron”
“Bush Crony Capitalists”
Contrary to what you said earlier, Krugman does right about the same thing every column. Bush.
Andrew Lazarus
Just for the record, is the re-appearance of massive deficits after the Bush tax program was put into effect (A) a difference of interpretation or (B) a correct prediction by Krugman and an incorrect prediction [note, I am not saying “lie”] by Team Bush?
The Mighty Reason Man
Terry-
Holy Christ, I am SO much smarter than you it’s not even funny.
Cole/Ricky-
Someday, the two of you should take the time to learn to distinguish between tone and actual policy position. I know, I know, it’s no damn fun to delve into complex distinctions like that, but you’ll be able to take in information from a lot more sources without gagging over supposed extremity, and you’ll end up smarter and more informed for your trouble. You’ll probably make more friends that way, too.
Cole-
You’re right, you have a firm and nuanced grasp on Krugman’s work. I apologize, and concede the argument to you. Bravo!
Ricky
Ah, yes, questioning the intellect of the opposing interlocuter. Gee, I’ve never seen that one before. And so difficult to do from the safety of your anonymous internet connection.
[yawn]
Perhaps you weren’t aware that truly intelligent people can get across their superior intellect without playing the “gosh, you’re so stupid” game. Then again, you didn’t know that, so…..
Lighten up, Francis. You’re sitting at your PC like the rest of us. Argue & have fun. The likliehood of you finishing one of your ad-hom sentences face-to-face are slim & none (and you know it) so why not try to debate like an adult & stop acting like a jerk?
Trust me, you’ll garner more support and credibility, and may even make a few friends. Or, act like a jerk…..up to you.
The Mighty Reason Man
Ricky-
Perhaps you misread. I’m questioning no one’s intellect (well, except for Terry’s…anyone who makes inane plays on the screennames of others automatically gets the idiot tag in my book). I wouldn’t comment here if I didn’t respect Cole – there are a lot of idiots in the world, why would I waste my time arguing on one’s site?
Gracias for the manners lesson – admittedly, the impact would be greater if you didn’t treat the fact that I am communicating via the internet as some kind of shameful revelation, or inform me of your conception of the typical habits of smart people, or assume you have an idea what I’m like in real life, but it was helpful, nonetheless.
For reference sake, I will continue to make snide comments to people who think that a good refutation of someone’s point is “BWAHAHAHAA!”
I’ll make you a deal – you stop assuming that because you disagree with something it is automatically ridiculous and beneath you to refute it, and I’ll stop talking to you like you’re an idiot. Fair enough?
In sum: Give me a reason to be polite to you, and I will gladly do so.
(and seriously, “Francis”? In a post that’s about acting like an adult and not pretending you’re tougher/smarter than you are from behind a computer screen, is that supposed to be ironic or something? Why don’t you just call me “Little Man” or “No Dick”?)
Moe Lane
Apparently somebody here hasn’t seen Stripes…
The Mighty Reason Man
Moe-
Fuck! I KNEW I recognized that from somewhere, but chose to ignore my instincts.
Everyone can feel free to ignore the parenthetical ending of my last post. (The point, I think, still has merit, but is so horribly mangled by my missing the pop-culture reference as to be beyond all reasonable hope of recovery).
Terry
Ahh….it’s tempting to appreciate the fact that The Mighty whatever is trying to put on a mild pretense to humility in his last post…after all, he has much to be humble about…just go look at some of the high school-style attempts at humor on his site.
David Nieporent
The short version: Krugman didn’t defend the Mahathir’s remarks, he explained the reasons why such remarks were politically necessary in Malaysia (the vast majority of industry in Malaysia is owned by the Chinese minority, and the extremely poor Muslims that make up the vast majority of the population tend to tear down the government and massacre the Chinese if they aren’t occasionally told that the Jews — not the Chinese — are responsible for their lack of wealth and power). Krugman’s argument (that certain actions of this administration [such as the lackluster response to the Boykin episode] have riled up the Muslim population of some countries and so leaders like Mahathir need to take certain steps to keep them in check), while you may not agree with it, a legitimate line of inquiry, not just random Bush-bashing.
Not only is it illegitimate, but illogical and irrational. If the dynamic is such in Malaysia that Muslims need things blamed on Jews in order to not kill Chinese, then how can George Bush have had anything to do with that? How can Boykin’s comments have made Muslims angrier with Chinese people?
Why would actions of the United States make Malaysians more anti-semitic? It might make them more anti-American, but Mahathir didn’t denounce the US. He denounced Jews.
Moreover, Krugman falsely pretends that Mahathir was speaking to Malaysians. He wasn’t; he was speaking to foreign Muslim leaders.
Ricky
Looks like it was that latter choice.
Have a nice life, MRM. Mine’s too short. I can go to DU & get usenet style responses. Tah-tah.
JadeGold
Damn, Ricky Lee. It should be against the law to do what MRM just did to you.
I felt the slightest twinge of compassion for you as MRM spanked you.
I’ve not seen such a utter and complete smackdown since Bo Jackson ran over Brian Bosworth.
Ricky
Good to see you have found a site that hasn’t banned you (yte), JG/MD.