Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Paul Krugman: Gibbs' "professional left" comments unprofessional, unfair and stupid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:36 PM
Original message
Paul Krugman: Gibbs' "professional left" comments unprofessional, unfair and stupid
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:40 PM by 30rock
KRUGMAN (8-11-2010):

"What gets me is how unprofessional the whole thing is.

Look, if youre a public figure of any kind, youre going to face a lot of criticism. Much of it will seem unfair to you; some of the unfair criticism will come from people you expected to take your side; youll be angry, youll feel that people are putting their egos or their personal aggrandizement above the cause.

Welcome to reality. Its my reality and Im just a professor/columnist. Someone actually in the White House has to be prepared for much more of this kind of thing and if you dont have a thick enough skin to take it, find another form of employment.

Im not saying to turn the other cheek and always say something polite as a general principle; by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so. Rudeness at the proper moment can serve a purpose as I hope Ive demonstrated over the years. But if you vent for the sake of venting; if you alienate people youre going to need; then youre just being stupid.

And that, Im afraid, is whats going on here. Rachel Maddow isnt going to go away, or turn all meek, because the White House Press Secretary implicitly denounced her. Even more to the point, liberal critics have an audience because theyre reflecting real concerns of real people. Those concerns need addressing, if necessary in the form of explanations of why their expectations cant be met. Denouncing the people giving voice to those real concerns as the professional left is both unfair and, as Ive said, stupid."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/in-the-matt...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. "by all means lash out at your critics, if you have something to gain by doing so." Interesting
I think Gibbs must know something Krugman doesn't.

It's interesting that people are making this about Gibbs vs. liberals. The comments weren't unclear, they were very specific. They were true, but still, what is it about Gibbs making the point that Obama is nothing like Bush that they find so offensive?

There is a point where some of this is beginning to look intentional or manufactured. Congressmen coming out of the woodwork, commentary by every left pundit. Even Bob Shrum weighed in.

Maybe Gibbs (Burton and the WH) believes there is something to be gained. Maybe Gibbs is frustrated because, as Alan Grayson claimed, the message about the administration's significant achievements aren't being communicated effectively. Achievements that Grayson seems mighty proud of.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Yeah right, "Gibbs must know something". It is clear to me that Gibbs speaking for the WH doesnt
like the left. Now I ask myself why. Why does the WH have such hatred toward the left? They hate the left more than the Faux News. Maybe they are trying to win over someone like the ex-republican "centrists".

If you have an explanation, I would love to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. I'd tend to bet there is little that Gibbs knows that Krugman doesn't
There is always some faith based cock and bull to explain away reports from our lying ass eyes and when it turns out to be crap the boogie man is rolled out to the tune of whining about only having one of the largest majorities in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. ....
:rofl:

..... so the guy who spent the greater part of the last year and a half telling us all the things the President has done wrong has found something ELSE to add to the list!?

HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! That's so funny I cant breathe!!!! HA HA HA

"alienate people youre going to need" ........ HA HA HA ........ YES! Soccer moms across the country are PATIENTLY waiting for Krugman and the link to tell them who to vote for! Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Krugman supported the HCR bill a lot
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:50 PM by 30rock
Didn't he? And it's worth noting that Obama's most ardent supporters say HCR was his greatest achievement so far. So why do you dismiss Krugman's supporting his greatest achievement? Perhaps you are referring to his warning that the stimulus was too small.

Don't you think that the GDP being revised to 1.4% today and the high unemployment prove him right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yeah, but I missed the article where Krugman offered his strategy....
... on how to get a larger simulus package passed.

He's an intelligent guy, but he strikes me as being heavy on economic knowledge and light on political knowledge.

And I need both.

I'm dismissing Krugman because I despise armchair quarterbacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
32. I don't dismiss him because he's been right. Gibbs reflected the
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 01:06 AM by roguevalley
white house because no one sneezes in that place without clearing it. they hate us for whatever reason and given the thinness of the enthusiasm in the current elections, alienating even one vote is assinine. But then, gibbs is that for this no matter what the reason. Period. The last thing we need to show is disunity and going off message that the pugs are shit. He really is a crappy spokesman when I know that and he either doesn't or doesn't care. if they want me to pat their asses about HC, never. I read what it is and the 2014-2020 kick ins and its shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
40. I hate to say this but Krugman has been reliably correct in his assessments.
I've actually shuddered while reading a Krugman column over the past couple of years...and I hoped he was wrong, I wanted him to be wrong. The thing is, he wasn't wrong...and I think he had high hopes for Obama. But his job is being a professor and a columnist. He strikes me as nobody's fool...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. The main point is that we do have concerns that are not being addressed.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:53 PM by dkf
When we criticize Obama for not advocating for a public option we never get a clear response on his position or his personal reservations or if someone is blocking it or why it can't be done. There is an expectation that we will trust him and because we do we need no explanation. Or is the refusal to address us the arrogance Obama is constantly being accused of?

All I know is I still don't understand if Obama is a supporter or a blocker of a public option. That is only one area that I don't feel I've got adequate feedback on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Rachel Maddow isnt going to go away....because the WH Press Secretary implicitly denounced her."
Good Lord! What an idiot! I know Krugman has this overwhelming desire to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, but he should at least get his facts straight. Gibbs said nothing about Rachel Maddow, implicitly or otherwise. In fact, Maddow has had more praise than criticism for this president. She's not been afraid to use her show to highlight how much this president has accomplished less than two years into his first term. For example:

"It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations. Wall Street reform agreementhealth reformthe stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation systemTax incentives for renewable and clean energyunheralded but giant investment in science and techalso expanded state kids` health insurance to cover another four million kidsthe Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Acta nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries` arsenals by a thirdan international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weaponsThe Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Actdismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Serviceoverhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan systemThe last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that." -Rachel Maddow


If Krugman would get off his self-righteous high horse once in a while he might understand using Maddow as an example only shows how out of touch he is. What a fool!

Of course Krugman's base doesn't care about facts, and he knows it. He knows to keep them coming back to read his claptrap he's got to keep them angry, because he knows they strive off anger, and since they worship him, he knows he can just make it up as he goes along because they wouldn't dare question him as long as he tells them what they want and need to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Batshit paranoia territory there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. You're right. Gibbs was referring to those who said the Pentagon should be eliminated
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:30 PM by 30rock
=nobody.

I'm sorry, but since Gibbs' "professional left" invention is so vague, columnists have the right to think X or Y was a target. Or Gibbs could stop being a coward and name names, in which case the debate would be over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
33. gibbs was talking about professional libs and that means rachel
and the rest of the media included. he isn't making this up. He is clear and so was gibbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. Yeah Krugman is so dumb, he won a Nobel Prize that he actually EARNED
as opposed to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Ooohhh! The evil DLC
Do any of you ever realize that when you bring up the DLC you sound just like conservatives when they demonize Muslims or illegal aliens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. How about those who call Krugman an "idiot"? Don't they sound like conservatives?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:31 PM by 30rock
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. No conservatives call Krugman an ideologue not an idiot. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Isn't idiot worse? And do conservatives condemn the DLC for being too centrist?
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 11:47 PM by 30rock
They do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Wow you're really missing the point!
Which is that too many on the left use the DLC as some sort of all purpose bogeyman like the right has used communism, muslims, aliens etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
35. given the craven ineptitude of the dlc, we don't have to use it as
a bogeyman. we just have to report what they do. nice try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Wow! Thank you for proving my point! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Why would you think that?
I guarantee this Krugman trash will be posted all en masse on Conservative media. In fact, go to Free Republic and do a search for Paul Krugman and you'll see his Obama bashing OP's are posted all over that site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. That's bad logic
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 12:02 AM by 30rock
IT's not logic to say that because X is posted on right-wing sites, then X is necessarily idiotic. Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments.

Wingnuts are instigators. Doesn't mean Krugman is an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Interesting, and your linking to it because?
"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Right. Gibbs might hurt Democrats' chances
I think you asked me to repeat it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. So you are linking to it
to help hurt Democratic chances? Please clarify

"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I don't get it. You mean hyperlinks? What link did I post?
Explain what you mean by linking. Linking what to what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. read back over what you wrote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
30rock Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Oh! i get it. You are telling me that ANYONE who links to Krugman's article is a conservative, lol
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 12:24 AM by 30rock
Your logic was so twisted it took me a while to comprehend it.

Right-wingers would hype Krugman's article in order to hurt Gibbs, without asking him to stops being idiotic. The right agrees with Gibbs that the Left "wants the Pentagon eliminated." but the right knows that the liberal base disliked the commments. So the right would want to make sure they amplify his gaffe.

Krugman (and I) are hoping Gibbs stop being idiotic. That's why Krugman gave Gibbs some good advice.

And this is all a hypothesis, as I have not seen Krugman's article in Rush Limbaugh's page or Sean Hannity's TV show yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. No, I don't think you are a conservative
you said that, I didn't.

What you did say is this:

"Why not raise the possibility that the right linked to those articles because Republicans think that bad news against Gibbs, a White House employee, could hurt the chances of Democrats in November?. Which is true, thanks to Gibbs' idiotic comments."


You stated that they link to those to hurt Democratic chances in Novemember. Then you say "which is true". So it's a fair question to ask you, if you think that is the reason, then why are you doing it also?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Go to Merriam-Webster and look up this word: C O N T E X T ...-nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I don't need to
but thank you for answering for the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Agreed. They are. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
34. and you are sad. the DLC is the worst part of our party, the professional quizling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. Thanks for proving my point! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Rockefeller Republicans...You know, that's EXACTLY what this administration is all about.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 12:50 AM by democrat2thecore
Very well-written post. Honestly, I had never thought of it in those terms, but your first three paragraphs are as good as any I've read on DU in a long time.

Rockefeller Republicans. Of course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. Not sure why that word is anathema around here- since they were more progressive on some issues
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 08:08 PM by depakid
Than the current administration or many in the Senate leadership.

Their attitudes, beliefs and values pretty well mirrored "the ruling coalition's."

That's just a fact, reviewable on the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Um, that's the point -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
30. Krugman is entirely sensible in this regard, with
one minor exception--Rachel Maddow almost certainly is not whom Gibbs had in mind when making that comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. since gibbs is too cowardly to name names, we can't know for sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. If Maddow were a DU'er, she'd have been labeled a cheerleader. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. I highly doubt that.
The strongest criticisms of Maddow I've seen on this site have been from the folks who think she's being too hard on the Obama administration (aka the "cheerleaders"). Personally, I think she's one of the most evenhanded liberal pundits out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. and her fact checking crew is excellent, bar none
She and her crew really do their homework.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntravenousDemilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
38. What Krugman appears to be saying, and which is correct, is that in the game of politics...
... sometimes it pays to be politic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
39. Now that everyone who were so "offended" by Gibbs
had their chance to kick him - and the president - again, can we move on to try and beat the GOP, or is beating Obama is more important?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. But where is the fun in that. No faux outrage to spend energy beating up
the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
41. As part of the "PL" during Bush's terms, I wish I'd been paid.
WTF is the "professional WH" team doing with this angle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistler162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
46. Perhaps... but accurate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. so, you calling those who disagree with an Obama policy a douchebag?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
49. LOL. He doesn't say they aren't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC