Back When I Cared About Krugman

As you can tell, I'm heavily into cleaning up my backposts and I felt this was timeless enough to post in real-time. It's a peek back to the bad Bush years and the temporary hero of the moderate-progressive majority of America.

The link below was originally posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 11:34 PM, back when the Times was behind a pay-firewall and the only thing I cared to read was Paul Krugman. Ironically, it was the last column of his relevancy. Because after the 2006 Midterms, we discovered that the country actually hated the GOP (and by extension Bush) and Krugman's role as lone crusader was replaced with his anti-Obama hate. Ah well, good times to remember the Bush Dystopia of 2004-2006.

Hey, I managed to get the Krugman today! Here's the basic text. Yummy:

"Limiting the Damage" By PAUL KRUGMAN.

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office."

When will Krugman be redeemed? Maybe, if as I predicted, he'll become the next Secretary of the Treasury.

Some Predictions, Part 2: Cabinet

I originally discussed this question here, here and here. The picture has changed a little, seeing who has helped the most or not at all. A summary of the previous discussions:

1. Tom Daschle can get any post he wants, he's been that important.
   
2. State: Gov. Richardson (D-NM),
   
3. Def.: Fmr Sen. (D-GA) Sam Nunn.
   
4. AG: Sen. Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
   
5. Treas.: Fmr Sec Robert Reich, Mayor Bloomberg, Fmr NJ Sen Bradley, Fmr Commerce Sec Daley.
   
6. Others John Edwards: HUD, Interior or Labor.

Since then, there have been changes in the world. First of all, John Edwards is out, permanently. Also, Hillary Clinton - whom I still haven't forgiven for her disgraceful primary behavior - won't want a cabinet post. She will want to stay in the Senate - where the money is. Moreover, it's unclear if Obama needs to pay her any lip service at all, especially if he has some women in prominent places in the cabinet. Moreover, I think that Richardson hasn't proven himself so useful, so why put him in State except for tokenism? That could open up.

The biggest change from these May predictions is the new necessity of real talent/gravitas in the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. Why - because these two posts will be the most important of the cabinet in terms of the #1 perceived problem - the economy (I say perceived because I believe that there are two more important: Attorney General, to reverse the grave civil liberties abuses, then Defense/Homeland Security to get us out of Iraq and to protect us at home; the Iraq War is directly related to the cratering economy and the Homeland Security department needs to be eliminated and put back to the original offices)

My feeling is that Obama may choose Paul Krugman for either post. Krugman just won a Nobel prize, was a well-known and prescient critic of Bush and the Housing Bubble, and was also a Hillary supporter and a bastard toward Obama. BHO seems to follow the Lincolnian "cabinet of rivals" doctrine, something that I respect highly about both men. By choosing Krugman, BHO will show his independence, veneration of competence, and strength of character.

Another possible option for either is Barney Frank. He's been in the House since 1981 and is the current chair of Financial Services. I think that Obama may feel compelled to put an openly gay person in the cabinet and Treasury (asop Commerce) may be enough of a carrot to get a powerful congressman to leave his chairmanship.

A person I overlooked in May was Dick Gephart. He was House majority leader for a while, and his staff has been a huge help to Obama. Possibly Labor. Another strong possibility is Cory Booker for HUD, or some other low level post (Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, current mayor of Newark and was thought to be more likely than Obama to be first black president... but he's only a mayor, of a cruddy town, and after a term in HUD or Education he can run for Senate/Governor).

Some people who have distinguished themselves in the general election who need to be repaid:

1. Gov. Sebelius, who I thought as a good VP pick, should get a cabinet post.
2. Gov. Napolitano should run against McCain for Senate in 2010. TPM reported yesterday that current polls show McCain losing to her by 53%-45%! Stunning when you think of it. But McCain may retire on November 5 and I don't know if she can resign as governor after appointing herself as Senator...
   
3. Colin Powell crucial endorsement a few days ago has now put him in the cabinet running. Ideologically I don't want a Republican to be in either Defense or NSA - I want to break the myth that only republicans know defense. The myth has been shattered by GWB anyway, so why resurrect it? Powell still may be useful as UN Ambassador, or possibly Ambassador to Iraq (heh heh), or maybe Sec. of Veterans Affairs, if its not beneath him.
   
4. Rep. Robert Wexler has done yoeman's work as an Obama surrogate in Florida. Wexler's also an Orthodox Jew and I'd like to see him put in a low-level cabinet position (Transport, Energy) or even Ambassador to Israel. Then, like Booker, after a stint in the Executive he can shoot for Gov/Senate
   
5. There are a number of former officials (following my purple rule) that could be useful as well: Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
   
6. A last 'cabinet of rivals' thought: Joe Lieberman for Homeland Security. Lieberman has acted shamefully in this election; he has bitten Obama's hand despite BHO's help to Lieberman back in '06. I am especially angered by Joe's hypocrisy: back in 1998 Joe publicly criticized Bill Clinton for the shameful act of adultery etc. Yet 10 years later, Joe is a HUGE supporter of what the TPM has claimed is one of the lowest, evil elections in a century. Where is Joe's outrage now? The fact that he's not calling McCain out for the terrorist smears shows that Joe was opportunistically criticizing Clinton (it did get him VP!) and has lost his moral compass now. So why do I want him to get Homeland Security. Even beyond the rivals idea, it because it will get Lieberman out of the Senate and then Obama can dissolve the whole department. Har.

VP, Cabinet Watch, part 2: Cabinet

Part 1, VPs, here.

Like with VP, the cabinet doesn't do as much work as provide famous faces of the party, helping define the political persona of the president. Bill Clinton chose many of his advisers from the campaign, and then had certain 'token' slots: Hillary insisted (so I've read) on a female in the top 4 slots (AG, State, Treasury, Defense) and got AG (and eventually State as well). Blacks and Latins were important, as well as a Republican in Defense. Bush also did this with his cabinet: his AG was a sop to the rabid conservatives, his Defense was to be a signal for realism and experience (cough cough cough), his State was a fine choice despite it being a token point (but also to be a hearkening back to his daddy's days) and treasury also went to a competent old timer (who was quickly fired after he proved too competent). A good cabinet official is a former senator or governor who wants to get back in the game, or a geezer who wants to retire with dignity (cf. Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton's first Treasury Sec.).

My analysis will be about the big names from the campaign supporters. I'll stick with the big four, plus any other notables - especially for the Democrats who are choosing largely from the same pool.

1. Obama:
   
   I've put the most thought into this of all the 3. Here's a list of Obama's top endorsers that I will generally be working with. And, note, for Obama, based on their close relationship and has experience in government, I think former Senate majority leader Daschle can ask and get whatever cabinet position he wants. So that's a wild card. Also, I am going to apply the Purple Rule (i.e. restrict the appointment of any sitting officeholder in a swing state. Another caveat, I don't think Sen. Kennedy (MA) will pull a Bentsen. He's too powerful and useful in the Senate. However, if he can arrange for a proper replacement, maybe he will so he can control both a cabinet spot and Massachusetts.
   
   1. State: Gov. Richardson (NM), if he shows that he can pull in Hispanic voters in November. His resume alone qualifies him for this job and he's perfect as the affable airhead that State has often been.
      
   2. Defense: Former Senator (GA) Sam Nunn. I hope.
      
   3. Attorney General: John Edwards' name was bounced around but he hasn't endorsed and since today's his primary in NC he's lost most of the effectiveness, so I see him (at best) getting HUD, Interior or Labor. The two best of the top people would be either Senator Feingold (WI) (sending a clear civil liberties message), or Sen Kerry (MA). I like Kerry because he was a former AG in Mass, he came out early and strongly for Obama, and it would take him out of the Senate, giving some more deserving people a shot.
      
   4. Treasury: Nobody special right now; could be Fmr Sec Robert Reich; Or even a Bloomberg would be nice. Of the other top endorsers there's Fmr NJ Sen Bradley (general gravitas), or better yet: Fmr Commerce Sec Daley (Chicago machine politician, Commerce Sec under Clinton, CEO of huge corporations).
      
   5. Others: Former Clinton cabinet members are a nice touch, to reassure voters that there's some heft after an 8 year absence from power (like, l'havdil, GWB did with GHWB people): Reich, Daley, Fmr NSA Anthony Lake, Fmr Sec Pena, and a nice group of former military leaders.
   
   
2. Hillary:
   
   Haven't given as much thought (ugh), but here's her endorsers:
   1. Defense: Wes Clark. This is off to an easy start.
      
   2. Treasury: I'm putting Paul Krugman here because he has turned into such a distgusting hack, that this must be his reward.
      
   3. State: Probably Mark Penn. He's so smooth.
      
   4. Attorney General: Webster Hubbell? Jim McDougal? Fmr Sec Cisneros? Or any of these fine fellows. Ooh, howzibout former Solicitor General Starr? He has lotsa experience.
      
   5. Others: Really, since Hillary is promising a 90s Nostalgia Administration, she'll basically choose whatever people are left over from her husband's administration. Basta.
   
   
   
3. John McCain:
   
   Here's a list of his endorsements. This a tougher list to compile because McCain needs to find people who have not been tainted by the second Bush administration or the scandals of the DeLay Congress. It's not only because both entities are electoral poison, it's because they are largely incompetent hacks who won't inspire confidence in what will be a dispirited an angry electorate [given what the landscape must look like for McCain to be victorious]. It's one of the tragedies for the GOP - that usually a decade in power will train a new generation of leaders; as it is, the GOP actively tranished and attacked leaders, training hacks and goobers instead. Bravo Karl Rove.
   1. Attorney General: I'll start here because I think that's where Lieberman will end up. I think after '08 his power in congress will have been eliminated by a massive Democratic pickup (even with a McCain win, just one more Democrat and Joe is moot).
      
   2. Others: Rather than go through the offices like I did with Obama, I'll just list some notables that may end up in power: Schwarzenegger will get something, because McCain owes him *big* for delivering California. Same goes with Crist for delivering Florida. Since those big states were winner-take-all, McCain needs to give payback. Schwarzenegger maybe for State (since he may the only Republican who speaks another language). And, if I'm right about Graham for VP, McCain may also want some prominant also-rans who can build up a real GOP leadership team: Romney could be in there, as well as Jeb Bush.
      

Well, that's all for now. Let's see what happens in Indiana and No Carolina. Go tar heels!

The Sad Tale of Wilentz

In the last post I described the core constituency of Hillary as basically women, old people, dumb people and racists. So where do Professor Sean Wilentz, and his fuzzy alter-ego Paul Krugman, fit in? Both are not women, dumb, or racist. Why do they hate Obama, and like Hillary, so much.

Part of the answer comes from analyzing their screeds. For Wilentz (who, I should add, was my professor in college and knows me personally, even if won't remember my name correctly), see this piece of guano in the New Republic:
"Making the Case... for Hillary Clinton" and for Krugman, just read any column over the past 4 months.

What both have in common is the small group of the Democratic elite who support Hillary:

1. Baby-boomers (who are the "old" category of the previous post)
   
2. and/or fierce liberals who hate the GOP so much that they want to keep fighting the fractious red-blue wars of the 90s (and the 60s, go figure).
   
3. and/or pundits who endorsed Hillary too early - before Obama showed himself the real deal - and are now trapped in either cognitive dissonance or, worse, Pundits Dissonance (the malady that afflicts moron commentators, disallowing them from admitting error).

Wilentz and Krugman are in all three of these groups.

Baby-Boomers Against the Youngin': These hypocrites were inspired by JFK as teenagers, flocked to an inexperienced hillbilly when he was in their age group, but now that the candidate is younger than they are - like the narcissitic nihilists they have been since the banana-peel smoking 60s - they can't handle it. Punk bastards. I'll be glad when they are shoved aside, because the next president will either be the anti-baby boomer Obama (say that 5 times fast) or the stodgy crew-cutted square that the hippie boomers rejected back in the day (McCain).

Liberal Fighters: Nothing quite so sad as a victim turned bully. Especially when they don't know how to bully well. Wilentz and Krugman don't want the culture war to end. They hate Bush and the GOP so much - for what happened to Bill and Hill in the 90s and for what Bush has done since then - and heck, maybe allaway back to Nixon - that they want to keep the fight going. The logic - and Wilentz/Krugman say this explicitly - is that the GOP needs crushing and Obama is a weenie and Hillary is a fighter.

Let's take this apart, because all three premises are wrong. First, we see what a great fighter Hillary has been (even when this was first proposed, back in 1-15, and its crystal clear now): she's awful. A shrill maladriot. She can't convince a drowning man to drink and she can't beat Obama - a political newcomer with a funny name, handicapped skin, and who refuses to fight back! Hillary is as good a fighter as Kerry/Dukakis/Gore. That is, she sucks.

But the real false premise combines the misdiagnosis of Obama and the nature of our battle with the GOP. Assume for a moment that the GOP needs to be punished for the horrific misdeeds of the past 15 years (the Clinton-Bush terms). What's the best way to do that? There's the shrill victim way - that of Hillary/Wilentz/Krugman - which is just fantasy. The victim getting the upper hand on the bully... doesn't happen in the schoolyard, and it certainly doesn't happen in the boardroom. Power is power and doesn't switch hands unless the bully is in a coma.

Which brings us to the weenie charge. Only true weenies - like Hillary/Krugman/Wilentz, and their mentors in weenie-dom: George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Rush Limbaugh - think that direct conflict is the way to win a war. Obama's skill is that of great politicians (think FDR or LBJ): diplomacy. To quote LBJ: "Remember the prophet Isaiah: Come let us reason together. Telling a man to go to hell and making him go there are two different things." A diplomat will defeat a bully unless he's outnumberd 5:1.

Obama has the true political skill that converts enemies into allies and to get his agenda - which is delightfully left-wing - passed. Bullies and other weaklings want wars because they like the glory of battle (specifcally the glory of winning). Obama, following the principles of Master Sun Tzu, will win. And if Wilentz/Krugman were real culture warriors they would flock to Obama because of that. But they're blinded, or bullies, and can't escape their prisons of thought.

Pundit Dissonance - Just as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge became towering figures because they were the populist opposition to Pres. Clinton, so academics like Wilentz and Krugman were the necessary opposition to Bush. Especially when the mainstream press rolled over and played dead during these years, these pundits were must-reads, providing information and courage during the dark times. These smart guys became talking-heads, and they lost their academic skills and fell into a papist 'just so' trap, where they considered that their words were incontrovertable truth (note: this is also known as the Charedi Rosh Yeshiva With Only a High School Education trap).

But times have changed since Krugman had been elevated into infallibility. From 2000-2006 his indispensibility was valid and unquestioned. But then came the realigning midterms of 2006, the explosion of trusted blogger journalism, and Youtube. The Democrats now have the GOP in a fair(ish) fight, the news and reality are getting out there. Krugman is not indispensible, and he seems to have let the revolution pass him by.

One proof of Wilentz/Krugman's failure is to assume that Hillary is experienced, and/or liberal, and/or a fighter, or whatever new guano comes out of her self-inflicted wounded bunker. Her claims are demonstrably false. Any intelligent person can see that. Wilentz/Krugman won't. They are infallible! They cannot be wrong. It is we mush-headed youngsters who are being snowed over by a talented black man! Whatever.

The mystery fourth category

Even were my above analysis to be wrong (and it isn't because I am now a pundit), I have discovered, through this painful primary, a mystery fourth category that Wilentz/Krugman - and many other wrinkly Democrats who support Hillary - are in: they are McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry Democrats (MMDKD). I'll explain that later.

Backpost: 1/15/08, 1:48 PM. All I had was the link. I'm adding the context and commentary now. Pic from here of Wilentz in 1994, 2 years after I had him in class.

Times, Free at Last (Again)

TimesSelect, the grasping boneheaded grabasstic NYTimes ploy to charge for parts of their website, has died a deserved death. The bone of the boneheadocity was the concept that people would find the Times columnists and archives so valuable, that they would pay a premium to read their golden words. Except, uh, they may be good but not nearly as good as the FREE stuff we get online.

The online world is free and evolving (for now) and in the two years since NYT locked themselves behind a Dickensian wall of greed, Wikipedia and Youtube exploded and took control of news and information. Now, two years later, the Times needed to drop their scrooging because they were being left way behind.

As proof for my analysis, I just noticed on the online 'front page' of the Times that they are introducing a blog for my man, Paul Krugman. Considering that I get most of my online news and analysis from the incredible blogs on the Atlantic, Harpers, and from independents like TPM and Michael Totten, I'm glad the Times is starting off right.

Paul Krugman Says it Better Than I

I find it useful to quote people who agree with me because it's too weird to actually quote your own self. So here's today's Krugman (Don't Cry for Reagan):

"... both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package. In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs."

This is why Bush, Bush & Reagan negligently and actively destroyed the government. And as Katrina and Walter Reed has taught America, there are just some things that we need and that only government can do.

Krugman Rediscovered

Paul Krugman is a great pundit (he was right about Iraq, doncha know). Yet I can't read him from the NYTimes because, darn them, they started charging for the best parts of the paper. Sure, I've done without the Bridge column for years, but when they took away my Krugman, there was no one left to complain. Ahem. Anyway, I swore off giving money to the Times in 2001 when I joined the NY community's boycott, so I had no Krugman source for a while.

However, the wacko liberal website Truthout were surreptitiously carrying the NYT columnists but were told to cease and desist. But sometime around the 2006 election they started carrying some of them again. And now Free Krugman is back!

Here are some recent columns
Jan 5
Jan 8
Jan 15
Jan 19
Jan 22
Jan 29

So far, I'm Still with Edwards

2008 is still a ways away; but the field is filling up quick and the two top Democrats - Hillary & Obama - are getting money and donors and attention, so it's time to restart the '08 topic I blurbed about a few months ago. While I find Obama intriguing (and Hillary disgusting), I'm still putting my oomph behind John Edwards. Right now, I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be very powerful. It'd match Southeast & Midwest, a moderate hawk & a social liberal, and two attractive (physically and emotionally) men who create a lot of voter excitement.

Then, after 8 years of Edwards we can plausibly have 8 years of Obama (by then people will be used to his name).

On the GOP side, I'm frightened of a Giuliani-McCain (or vice versa) ticket because they both have appeal to Independents. But McCain looks like death warmed over (and will be 72 in November '08) and Giuliani is massive S.O.B. - which is an asset for the NYC mayor's seat, but doesn't play well anywhere else.

While there's a funny symmetry to have a Giuliani-Clinton race - when's the last time the major party candidates came from the same state, probably Lincoln-Douglas - I am praying that Hillary will implode before the year is through. And Giuliani is a ticking bomb of an even higher degree (and remember he ducked out of their first fight in 2000 blaming is naughty prostate... like having cancer could keep you from the Senate; just ask Tim Johnson]

In any case, I will comment more about this issue as time permits. I do like that Krugman gave some support to Edward's bona-fides here (praising his health plan).

{2009 Update: Pic from Edwards' endorsement of Obama in 2008; my how things change.}

Krugman At Last

I refuse to give the New York Times any money. But Paul Krugman is so good - it makes the TimesSelect slimyness so attractive. Anyway, his column appears to be accessible today.

A crucial quote:

At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood - and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

Krugman Test

I love it when Paul Krugman agrees with me (as he did in today's column):

Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.

Toast!

The National Review Proves Our Point

Gotta love the National Review. They take particular aim at one man who has been speaking the God's Honest Truth for a long while, Paul Krugman of the New York Times (and Princeton), NRO sells sweatshirts, etc, with an anti-Krugman logo! See the Krugman Truth Squad

It makes sense. Krugman is the greatest type of threat to the mealy rationales of NRO writers and readers. And it reinforces what I had felt before, that Krugman is Da Man.


P.S. To compound Jonah Goldberg's asininnity, they have sweatshirts with his face on them as well. I guess I understand why NRO attacks people like Krugman (and maybe much of this gutter conservative ideology as well) - low self esteem. I'll recommend a good shrink to Goldberg when Bush is voted out of office and pardons all of his war criminal cronies.

Gotta Love This Guy

Paul Krugman rules.

Best Argument for Iraq

As usual, Joshua Micah Marshall, from a July 22 post has managed to give a balanced anaylsis of our Iraq situation. While he has been a vocal critic of the government's reasoning and behavior, he give the neo-cons in the kitchen cabinet credit for pursuing the war in Iraq for positive ideological reasons.

That is, instead of claiming that we're in Iraq so that the Bushies could win 2002 & 2004 (which is so obvious that it's not even considered a problem - just being a politician means that you will start foreign entanglements to be re-elected; it's so much part and parcel of politics that it carries no more shame than being a politician itself) he brings some nuance.

Here's Marshall's analysis of the war reasoning:

"But over time after 9/11 one overriding theory of the war did take shape: it was to get America irrevocably on the ground in the center of the Middle East (thus fundamentally reordering the strategic balance in the region), bring to a head the country's simmering conflict with its enemies in the region, and kick off a democratic transformation of the region which would over time dissipate the root causes of anti-American terrorism and violence: autocracy, poverty and fanaticism."

Alas, Marshall overlooks the main reasoning: (a) Bush is a younger and less-accomplished Ronald Reagan, (b) like Reagan, Bush Jr. needs an issue to paint the world black & white, (c) Communism has been succeeded by International Islam as the newest world threat.

We needed to attack Iraq because Bush needed a cause to give gravitas to his otherwise aimless and worthless presidency. Before 9/11 what did Bush stand for? "Not being Clinton." And, honestly, except for the sex, what has Bush done different from Clinton? His administration has been even more underhanded with the truth and we don't even have prosperity to cushion the blow! He has driven our country into an economic free-fall, like his daddy, and has tried to inject right-wing extremists into the judiciary.

Despite the recent destruction of Yogi and Boo-Boo Hussein (whatever their names are), we still have not been able to establish why we attacked Iraq. As Krugman said yesterday:

"By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes."

We must demand accountability from our (ostensibly) elected leaders. At least treat Bush Jr. with the same respect and honor that we gave his predecessor.