"Does he fear that his enemies would use any support for progressive people or ideas as an excuse to denounce him as a left-wing extremist? Well, as you may have noticed, they don’t need such excuses: He’s been portrayed as a socialist because he enacted Mitt Romney’s health-care plan, as a virulent foe of business because he’s been known to mention that corporations sometimes behave badly."
Krugman, who worries that Obama is "still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Sounds like a certain dilettante political columnist feels a little pissy about not getting a dinner invitation.
And "made him what he is"? Is this a white man telling a black man that he's not sufficiently grateful for what the white people did for him? Racist!
The Zero doesn't need to associate socially with "those who made him what he is?". They're all in his administration.
PS for once, Palladian and I agree (gasp)!
Krugman really must live in a bubble.
Obama won the election because he convinced independent voters that he was a moderate. When independents change their minds about his "moderation", then Obama's chance to be re-elected evaporates.
I really like the phrase "those who made him what he is". So, who comes to mind? Bill Ayers? Rev. Wright?
A bubble, I say, a bubble.
You know, being a hack is a hard job. It takes time and effort to be a good hack - Rove, Carville, etc. worked at it and got good at it. Just because you wrote some good papers on the economics of trade 30 years ago does not mean you will be a competent political hack no matter how willing you are to lie. (It doesn't even mean you know much about economics outside of your specialty.)
I said this on the other thread and Krugman proves me correct.
"Libs live in a kind of dreamland. Cause their team generally ain't handsome or brilliant or strong".
And Obama has never sought to be above partisanship no matter what Krugman and other libs try to spin.
I don't think that Obama has ever had good friends. He'll dump anyone at the drop of a hat.
To answer the question in the title:
Clinical narcissism.
Shorter Krugman: I feel so used.
I don't know that the health care thing is the main reason he's been labeled a socialist. It's just one thing that's contributed.
What I do know, from Obamacare's passage, is that he's been labeled a liar in that he campaigned against Hillary on no individual mandate. He's been labeled as monumentally naive after being forced to admit Congress put things in the law that directly contrast with his claims about keeping your current insurance and doctor, for instance. And, finally, he's been charged with not delivering his hopeychangy specifically because he was going to change how things got done in Washington, only to rewrite the book on dirty politicking to secure the needed votes to pass that monstrosity.
I'll add one more. Incompetent. Possibly President himself, but certainly those around him have questionable levels of talent and ability to govern at the highest possible level on the planet. The Sherrod case was just latest and most stark example. The chick on the stage with him last week pimping her unemployment status was another.
Snubbing?
That isn't true. Lawrence Tribe helped make him what he is (by letting someone else do the work at Harvard) and he's been granted a job in the bowels of the Justice Department.
How wonderful is that?
Ask a question in the lead paragraph, answer it in the third, then spend the rest of the op-ed pretending you haven't answered it already.
(the other kev)
Krugman desperately wants to be someone's Goebbels. If Obama won't play the way he wants, he'll keep looking for someone who will. He does define narcissism as GMay says, because he simply is incapable of seeing anyone else's point.
Krugman, who worries that Obama is "still wrapped up in his dream of transcending partisanship."
While my regard for Obama is not high, I don't believe for a second that he is so delusional that he believes he is transcending partisanship. I have no doubt that Krugman is that delusional, however.
So, let me see if I can get this clear: Krugman wants Obama to vomit lefty crap instead of just ooze it out of every pore?
Is that what he's saying?
Krugman says, "He’s been portrayed as a socialist . . . "
I don't get this. Obama is a socialist. Why can we not acknowledge that obvious truth? Is there anything on Obama's agenda that is not socialistic? Granted, under the American system it's difficult for him to institute the level of socialism that he desires, but he's made a lot of progress in that direction.
I notice he regularly feels compelled to scoff at the idea that he's a socialist, which reminds me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" protestation.
With one exception, every person I've read or heard argue that Obama isn't a socialist was really complaining that he isn't socialist enough.
That one exception argued that he's really a fascist, apparently not realizing that fascism is a variant of socialism.
The Big O has been the most partisan President in the history of the United States.
Don't you listen to him? He is on every fuckin channel every hour of the day.
I think I saw him on "Sponge Bob Square Pants."
YoungHegelian,
"Krugman really must live in a bubble."
People are always saying this, and I don't understand it. Why can't he just be an idiot? Or a liar? Why is the assumption, always, that he lives in a cacoon? (sp?)
As I reveal, with that link above, he can be shown the errors in his thinking and it still doesn't change his mind - nor does he care how it affects the rest of us - he's just got a free-floating desire for the rest of us to knuckle under, which I call "cultish thinking".
(I searched for articles describing this but couldn't find them so this is wholly my opinion.)
No Mr. Krugman, its about the independent voters. The loss of their support is what threatens the Obama presidency. But unlike the "progressives" on the left, they will, by and large, quietly slip away.
And shouldn't we have expected this from a candidate who's only electoral successes were from a safe Democratic State Senate district in the south side of Chicago and a US Senate campaign against a late entry, out of state, far right Republican. With that experience it would be too easy to assume that his high ideals and lofty words were what would win the day and the vote and continue to do so.
So now two years later we still have the words, less of the ideals and more partisanship, more hectoring of "big business", more unemployed and much more debt.
Progressive?
Kev,
"Krugman desperately wants to be someone's Goebbels."
Now you're talkin'. I know it's not PC to engage in Nazi talk but, sadly, that strain is still with us - BIG TIME.
The cool thing to do, today, is to point at the Nazis and say "anybody could've done what they did" but then ignore that the people of today are "anybody":
The Nazis were socialists - and so is the world-wide Left.
The Nazis hated the Jews - and, with the rise of the world-wide Left, anti-Semitism is popular again.
The Nazis were occultists - and the occult is the world-wide Left's default religion.
To miss this shit is to miss the whole ballgame.
Krugman gets it wrong again.
Obama snubs everybody.
He's an equal opportunity snob.
Paul Krugman, who still worries that some folks don't yet think him a complete nincompoop.
wv: "obeltr" -- nickname given the president when he attempted to karaoke the whitney houston catalog.
No Sixty Grit it was the gay marriage episode. You see Sponge Bob wanted to marry Patrick so he could use his health care benefits but the Big O went on to try to explain why he was against gay marriage but he just couldn't come up with an explanation so he just kept talking until the episode ran out.
I do admit I was surprised that the Big O went on Sponge Bob since it is the gayest show on television and you know Obama doesn't like gay people.
Obama snubs everybody.
He's an equal opportunity snob.
So I guess that makes him a
snub-snob
What explains Mr. Obama's consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is?
He knows that they're never going to vent their ire by voting Republican. There's no downside to taking them for granted.
What explains Mr. Obama's consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is?
Good taste?
What explains Mr. Obama’s consistent snubbing of those who made him what he is?
...journalists?
L-E-G-A-C-Y
DHOTUS knows he'll be lionized simply because of his skin color.
Unless he's outed as the racial socialist Che-wanna-be that he is.
And I see the logic of the "reassure Independents" line, but they're already gone.
He's not getting them back. They fell hard for the Hopey Changey bait [waves to Ann] and feel used.
Ann do you feel like you fell for a bad con? You know, the kind most people are too embarassed to report?
Cry me a river?
Yes, Obama pushed for unemployment insurance extensions, even though unemployment is low already (it's hovering slightly under 10%). And he pushed this through on a straight party line vote.
Obviously Obama is partisan. Unemployment insurance????? That's marxist.
Be careful grappling with that Strawman, DTL. You might hurt yourself again.
Hey, anyone else noticed that since the demise of JournoList, the Libtard talking points here have dropped off?
Are you guys still getting paid, DTL?
The Obama machine's use of the word "transcendent' and its various forms signals a sort of cult dreaming not really useful in administering a country.
Herewith a random definition:
extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent
That's our little mongrel. Praise him.
The "constant snubbing" is explained by the fact that Obama no longer needs his old base. With his monster bills, he has established a bureaucracy that will rule America much more thoroughly than any mix of elected officials. That's his new base.
Post a Comment