I think Krugman's near the end of his rope: "Karl Rove's America"

[DeepModem Mom]

New York Times:
Karl Rove's America
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 15, 2005

....Mr. Rove...understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.

And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp

[American in Asia]

1. Me too - he nailed it though, didn't he? (n/t)

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Sadly, he did, indeed. nt

[applegrove]

2. It hurts a great deal to know what is going on and watch it. If you love

your country.

[Tom Kitten]

5. what you just said

makes me cry literally because I think this is exactly what the right wing wants.
Our thoughts and philosophies, reasons and religions do not matter at all to these people.

[applegrove]

15. Oh they'll get you upset and then get people to judge you for being upset.

Be yourself. And you'll be fine.

[maryallen]

48. On the 4th of July show, Garrison Keillor ...

asked his audience to sing the Star Spangled Banner. I sang along at home and cried like a baby --- all related to the horrible state of this country and the shame I feel about this unjustifiable war.

Paul Krugman, like Garrison Keillor, keep on trying to be the proverbial "voice in the wilderness." Kudos to the "REAL" heroes in this land.

[DeepModem Mom]

49. I was crying with you --

Thank goodness for Garrison Keillor, a wonderful man. I walked, crying, into the room where the rest of the family was also listening, in varying degrees. Someone asked what Garrison had said, and two of us said at the same time: "Nothing. He didn't have to say anything."

[myrna minx]

37. If they can get away with this, I fear our beloved American Experiment

is over. I mean, if committing treason makes one a hero to the media and the rabid right, what's the point? :cry:

[Cha]

4. I hope a lot of people

read this analogy of rove's AMerica and take it to heart.

I'm glad Krugman put that in there about what rove said in his creepy speech when he was out campaigning in Manhatten for the repuke,doug forrester, of New Jersey.

We have got to get rid of this cancer on America.

[Eric J in MN]

6. When Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill restoring the Fairness Doctrine,

the road was paved for Rush Limbaugh and today's lies.

[KharmaTrain]

17. That Wouldn't Have Mattered...

The rules of radio really changed with Dereg '91 and Telcom '96...this gave the large corporations control of the airwaves and they've done what they please ever since.

In truthfulness, the Fairness Doctrine never worked as it never covered advertising and any candidate who could outspend another always got the most of the public airwaves. The only thing the fairness doctrine did was to ensure low rates for the political spots, now stations can charge whatever they want...usually freezing out lesser candidate even further.

Shows like Limbaugh are considered "entertainment"...not "news" and would have never been covered under the Fairness doctrine either.

The sad story is the right wing saw radio as something they could exploit while liberals and progressives either were satisfied with NPR or just didn't care. By the time we did, the right wing had a 10 plus year head start.

[Melodybe]

24. Don't forget about the Millions against the Media Marches Feb 1, 2006

The 10th Anniversary of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, we will be marching in LA, NY, DC, Miami, and Chicago. Other cities may be added once we get the permits and the website running.

PM me if you are interested in helping.

[Eric J in MN]

42. Rush Limbaugh discusses controversial subject of

public importance.

He absolutely would be covered by the Fairness Doctrine if it hadn't been repealed.

[Mojambo]

7. Totally spot on

"But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat."

[Stephanie]

12. "the facts are irrelevant" is the entire story of this administration

[AlGore-08.com]

8. How did our political system get to this point? IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID

Sorry, Krugman is usually dead on, but he totally ignores the obvious this time. The GOP could not have gotten away with praising Smirk's Social Security bs in 2000 if the media hadn't spent the 2000 election beating up Gore and drooling over Smirk. They wouldn't be able get away with blaming the CIA for underreporting the WMD before the invasion and blaming the CIA for over reporting them after the invasion if the media hadn't spent the run up to the invasion mindlessly repeating everything Team Smirk handed them - - especially drooling over how great Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. was.

It's because we don't have a single god damned new organization in this country that we are oompah-loompah-doompity screwed.

[mindwalker_i]

11. "It's the media stupid"

The problem is more fundamental than that. People in this country, at least to too great a degree, rely on media too much to tell them what's going on. Americans think they're doing well to watch the evening news each night to stay informed. After that's over it Friends. Or reruns of Friends. Really, people "don't have the time" to really keep up with the important stories and get multiple points of view. That makes them vulnerable to being misled by the one source of news that they get.

So we can complain that the news just doesn't give even time to each side of each story. That's true. But they can't really give enough time to especially the important news items because people would get bored and watch Friends.

Bread a Circuses Baby!

Now let's look at what's happened to the news in the last 5 years or so. We saw the birth of Rush Limbaugh followed by a slew of, basically, copy cats, plus, in my opinion, slewing of news in favor of the political right. Although the right-wing talk show guys were there mainly to spout the Republican agenda (the radical part), they had another goal, which was really to divide people further. While the people who believe them go into an almost religious fervor of agreement, the other side goes into an almost religious fervor of disagreement.

This makes politics very much like a wrestling match, and this is extremely important! Lots of people pick a side and follow it with religious fervor. Facts don't mean that much. Supporting your side means everything.

Back when I was younger there were times when I would see things (laser shows for example) that were highly environmentalist. The emotional appeal was very great for me, almost bringing me to tears at times. Later I realized that I felt like I belonged to a "cause," believed in it and felt like part of a group or family. I still believe in the environmental causes. That is, however, tempered with an understanding of the emotional response that accompanies it. I can look much more closely at all the sides of an issue than I could before. Face it: the nation (and world) does have to look at the economic effects of environmental policy. Having a population of 6+ billion relies on a lot of things to keep us alive - growing a lot of food through the use of advanced techniques, shipping said food, etc. If that infrastructure is damaged by laws, it could result in a lot of death, very easily.

Back to dividing us: it's a lot easier to control people who are divided. This is possibly the most damaging effect of righ-wing talk radio, and probably some factors on the left. The more divided we are, the less likely we stand up to our oppressors. Gay marriage, saying that liberals want to offer counseling to the 9/11 terrorists, it's all to keep us divided.

You think most Americans are as divided on issues as they appear to be? Personally I wouldn't like to see abortion used as birth control without any more consideration than one takes in getting a hair cut. And I bet that plenty of people on the right (the ones who actually believe it, unlike the leaders who just use it as a wedge issue) would be against forcing a woman to carry a baby to term if it's likely to kill her. There are fanatics on both sides, but I bet there's a lot more common ground on many issues than people realize.

But how many people including myself are really itching for a fight? How many want to see "senator X put the smack down on" somebody? It's a wrestling match.

Like a wrestling match, a great deal is staged.

-mwalker

[AlGore-08.com]

20. Of course people depend on the news to give them the news

That's why it's called "the news", not "an infomercial for Disneyland".

There never has been a golden utopian moment where all of the news media functioned as vigilant watch dogs for the public interest, but there has got to be accountability at some point. Checks and balances is the genius of American democracy - - we need a check and a balance to keep the media checking and balancing the government and corporations.

[mindwalker_i]

21. The news

The American people need to demand that the news provides information, from both or all sides. The corporations will do what makes them money. Currently that means sensationalism and partisan attacks. If they didn't do what made them the most money, shareholders would sue.

So that means that people have to demand news be news. It's going to be a tough road - people will have a hard time changing, if they even admit that it's necessary.

Fox viewership is dropping. That's a good sign, and it would be to the dem's benifit to point out why this is happening.

-mwalker

[FighttheFuture]

55. It would also seem that the news cannot be "owned" by ...

publicly or privately traded corporations. It has to be independent and accountable. The point of the news is to inform, not to make $$$. That's the point of entertainment!

How to do this? The BBC model? PBS? Tax on media corporations/TV to create independently funded news organizations?

Still, people can always be bought. Make the news democratic? Vote in or appoint heads of news organizations like court judges or the Fed Chairman? See where I'm going?

How would this work on papers, radio without infringing on free speech? Is speech free when one's voice (i.e. owners) is magnified so much more over others?

Something has to change with the current model which is mostly corporatist and fundamental in thought.

All this also ties into an educated citizenry not polluted by absolutists beliefs and tenants of faith. People who have poor educations or take certain critical world views as unquestionable tenants of faith do not/can not even understand how to take the news they receive and apply it to their lives and society they live within and depend upon!!

[chelaque liberal]

28. Welcome to DU

I appreciate your thoughtful and articulate post. You make good points.

[area51]

34. "abortion used as birth control without any more consideration...."

That's nazi propaganda, that women are amoral & think nothing about aborting a fetus.


Keep in mind that the biggest abortifacients are the bombs our tax dollars pay to drop on people, & the fact that we don't have universal healthcare, which causes our higher child mortality rates.

[bloom]

45. And some of these chemicals that go unregulated... "abortifacients?"

"Body Burden — The Pollution in Newborns"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4099689

"Not long ago scientists thought that the placenta shielded cord blood — and the developing baby — from most chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But now we know that at this critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol. This is the human "body burden" — the pollution in people that permeates everyone in the world, including babies in the womb.


In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage."

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whistle]

10. Krugman is getting closer, but he still has not earned his cigar...

...Karl Rove has not invented anything new at all in politics. What Rove epitomizes is nothing more than the crude Americanized version of Nietzsche's Superman

<snip>
Superman, according to Nietzsche has reached a state of being where he is no longer affected by "pity, suffering, tolerance of the weak, the power of the soul over the body, the belief in an afterlife, the corruption of modern values (Nietzsche's Overman: Blueprint for the Antichrist Superstar)." Superman is constantly changing and in a state of rebirth and growth. He determines what is good and what is evil, not allowing religion or society to determine these things for him. The Superman finds his happiness in this way. He uses a reason that is independent of the modern values of society or religion. He determines his own values. This creation of his own values gives him joy, and in order for the Superman to cope with a changing world, the Superman must constantly change. This constant state of change is a constant source of joy, leaving little or no room for suffering. The Superman does not believe in an afterlife or the power of the soul over the body because he does not believe in religion and has no proof of an afterlife or a God. Therefore, he makes the most out of this life, not depending on a reward in Heaven or a punishment in Hell for what he has done on Earth. The Superman does not pity or tolerate the weak. He feels that human compassion is the greatest weakness of all because it allows the weak to restrict the growth of the strong. In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, says "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome . What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment...

<more>
<link> http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Knowles.htm

These tight-asses neo-conservatives are nothing more than students of the Nazi thugs and intellects from the Germany that over-through the Wiemar Republic and installed a fascist dictator Adolph Hitler and ruled as mere 13 years, but who brought such terrible destruction and suffering to the world. Rove loves the Nazis and there is a broad ambitious clutch of like-minded individuals who have taken power in Washington using the same deceptions and methods that the Nazis used to move into power in Germany. I wish Paul Krugman would dig deeper into his research rather than always spin around the cusp of most issues.

[Stephanie]

14. he should read Leo Strauss

and then www.newamericancentury.org

[alittlelark]

23. Has any MSM done better over the last 5 years????

[bloom]

47. "Creative destruction is our middle name"

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace." Micheal Ledeen

"Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3037473

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4081103#4082187

----

Modern day nazis.

[raysr]

13. Aren't we all?

When Bush is gone what are we going to have? 40+% of the country is fuckin nuts! Bush reminds me of a saying I read in a porta-potty once, "This place was clean, until all the shit got in!"

[Strelnikov_]

18. Yep. Chimp, Turd Blossom, the Neo-Cons, Are Just A Symptom

of the rot that has taken hold in this country.

I am afraid that amputation may be the only solution considering the depth of the right-wing stupid infection.

[LSK]

16. Krugman rules

I highly recommend his book "The Great Unraveling"

[jsamuel]

19. Sigh... politics above all else

I sympathize with this editorial. Why are the Republican Senators and Congressmen saying that Rove “deserves a metal” when we all know what he did? Why can’t people just admit when they are wrong? They are not arguing that he is innocent; he committed the definition of treason. Bush Sr. wrote that law into place in 1982 and he said violators of that law are “the most insidious of traitors.”

[alittlelark]

22. Not neaer the end of his rope.... but suffering 'outrage overload"

I've been there 3-4 times... I understand it.

[oxbow]

25. Rove is the posterboy for the permanent campaign

The permanent campaign is the political ideology of our age. It combines image-making with strategic calculation. Under the permanent campaign governing is turned into a perpetual campaign. Moreover, it remakes government into an instrument designed to sustain an elected official's public popularity. It is the engineering of consent with a vengeance.

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, The Permanent Campaign

[Pachamama]

26. Doesn't sound like he's at his end of the rope-Krugman's just warming up!

I love Paul Krugman! He is so intelligent and for an Economics Professor, writes amazingly well and clear (no offense to Economists, but most are not the best writers who can write in a clear and easy to follow manner).

He's calling it as it is and frankly, I think that he's just warming up to calling out these neo-con freaks and thugs who are running this country into the ground....

[BurtWorm]

27. "Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant."

"For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat."

[necso]

29. It's politics as total war,

and the first casualty of (real) total war is every principle except those relevant to "winning". (Not that Rove, W, the neocons, the fundies*, etc, were ever bothered by anything recognizable as being principle in the first place. Vice (those beliefs and practices that run counter to principle), it turns out, is all the "virtue" that these people have ever needed -- except as a mask for their actual beliefs and practices.)

Unfortunately, in the political arena, total war amounts (more or less) to totally manipulating the ignorant, the foolish, the hateful and the greedy (etc) -- and this means that (practical) principles such as knowledge, wisdom, perspective and understanding (etc), necessary for dealing with actual reality (like a real war -- and as opposed to the easily-manipulated nonsense in people's heads), can be discarded along with such ideals as democracy, meritocracy and egalitarianism (etc).

Sooner or later we must realize that this battle is for principle itself -- and that there is no dealing with creatures that don't have any "principles" except for "winning" a political war -- and thoroughly exploiting the resulting "spoils of war".

...

fundies*: The hate-filled and intolerant who hide behind some belief system, and who corrupt the beliefs and practices of that belief system to their unprincipled ends, while falsely claiming to fulfill it in some "fundamental" way.

[NuttyFluffers]

33. it's the same battle china fought against the Legalists

to this day they are the fairy tale monsters of childhood, the evils that could lurk in any man's heart. they were so evil and destructive that china tried to erase any legacy they had, just as germany is trying to do with nazi fascism. it's the lesson each people have to go through it seems.

there is truth and reality and there is lies and insanity. bushco followers have chosen lies and insanity. eventually the world will purge them from reality, as it always does, but it will be painful and bloody, as it always was.

[depakid]

30. "How did our political system get to this point?"

That's unfortunately an easy question to answer....

and anyone can start by asking people like Harry Reid. That's where (most recently) the fault lies.

With cowards- with "big talkers"- who won't back it up. It's not with the far right.

We've always known what the far right and their adherents would (and will) do- given half the chance.

What we didn't know was that our own supposed "leaders" would sell us all out, time and again.

They backstab Howard Dean for speaking the truth- they take center stage (like Obama) and show not an ounce of faith- real faith- and expect people to believe in them.

And then wonder why they don't (and can't and won't) win.

Show me someone with the courage of his or her convictions- real convictions- who actually cares- and I'll show you someone who can help us take our country back....

[Larkspur]

31. Here's what I emailed Krugman in response to this op ed

When I see delusions accepted as fact nowadays, I can only think that if 19th century Scottish poet, journalist, and editor Charles MacKay were alive today, "Karl Rove's America" would be another chapter in his book
Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds
http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm

VOL. I -- NATIONAL DELUSIONS

In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple, and neither of them recovering its senses until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity...

I've been enjoying your column since I started reading it a few years ago. Keep up the good work. You are a modern day "Thomas Paine."

[DeepModem Mom]

51. A wonderful response, Larkspur. nt

[XemaSab]

53. Chris Hedges' book

"War is a force that gives us meaning" makes some similar points.

[Larkspur]

32. Dupe post. Self-deleted

[cleofus1]

35. i love that guy!

if he wasn't a giggly little elf...he would rule on TV....
i've certainly used him for reference for years now...

[gristy]

36. Rove=thug Bush=thug????

This last paragraph nails it. Krugman doesn't pull his punches in this article.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser... is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

[CWebster]

38. "Most of all,

it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?"

They say global warming has reached the point where the damage is irreversible? That is what it seems to be with our body politic. Complete corporate domination is the parallel to global warming and there really is no force to correct it since both parties are bowing to the same masters. The new bankruptcy laws, the outrageous Supreme Court ruling on economic interests' rights to grab property--everyday the power tips further to the corporate ruling class. In order for the Democrats to get in on the song and dance they most improvise on the theme--but the tune is still the same.

[kentuck]

39. "How did our political system get to this point?"

And what do we do about it? First of all, Democrats need to stand together. When they go off on their own, they are attacked and destroyed by the right-wing machine. The examples are too numerous to mention. Democrats need to work in teams of three or more whenever public statements are made. Repubs can destroy one person but they have not figured out how to do it with three at once. It would appear too obvious.

[tk2kewl]

40. Krugman is a very peculiar dude.

Sometimes he is so right and sometimes so wrong. His DSM column was absurd, but here he tells it like it is. :shrug:

[wli]

41. facts are being fixed around the policy

It's not just DSM; academia has likewise significantly deteriorated because of this. Witness creationists, tobacco scientists, abiotic oil theories, disinformation by the mass media, and so on.

There's not a scrap of writing left anywhere left untainted by this.

[DirtyDawg]

43. You're right about Paul...

...being too timid for TV. Recall his appearance on that shit hole Dennis Miller's show...why I was watching I'll never know except to see how Krugman would handle it. Basically, it was predictable with Miller over-talking, prodding, challenging, belittling and ridiculing pretty much throughout. Krugman just doesn't have the presence or moxie to stand toe to toe with pricks like Miller and so he came across as, as I said earlier, timid. The thing that really got to me was at the end Miller suddenly drew back at Krugman as if he were going to hit him. Paul, obviously not prepared for such an act of rudeness, almost jumped out of his skin...Miller laughed, having accomplished what he had intended, and Paul grinned sheepishly, shook Miller's extended hand, and the show was over. God how I wish it had been someone that would have blasted the asshole right in the chops...of course Miller never would have pulled that on someone he thought might not react just as he figured Krugman would.

As for how we got to this point...go see the movie 'Crash'...we've allowed our prejudices and fears to consume our very lives...and we have a bunch of political leaders willing to exploit those prejudices and fears to gain and use power...all in the name of making more money for their friends. And what's worse, they - the partisans and the fools following them - are proud of it...that the scariest thing of all.

As Jimmy Carter said in his address at the Demo convention, we've allowed this bunch to sell the soul of America...honesty and truth have been abandoned. Question: Once you lose your soul, how do you get it back?

[dogday]

44. This says it all.....

"On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering."

[DeepModem Mom]

50. Right, dogday -- what a powerful sentence! nt

[garybeck]

46. will the next Howard Beale please come forward?

SOS

we need someone in the media to get MAD!

if you don't know what i'm talking about watch the movie Network. You won't regret it.

[LaPera]

52. Excellent column by Krugman today!

[redacted]

54. This is the only thing a republican "friend" of mine from the dog park

can agree on. That this kind of crap has to stop. Running the country has to be more important that "politics."

Did it every occur to Bush-co that if they acutally did their jobs right, that the country would have re-elected them.

Maybe that's it, maybe they just can't (or won't) do their jobs. Didn't Richard Clark say something about that on Al's show a few days ago.

[fberknm]

56. Truth Has Always Been Political

I think perhaps Krugman is demonstrating some naivety to think that this is a new development. How did our political system get to this point? Well, it has always been there, dirty, dishonest. To be sure, I expect that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are clean and have the best of intentions. Sometimes it is just hard to find them.

But when we take a look at the world in which these people tend to play, we understand that they are completely out of touch with society. They know nothing of morality or ethics, only what they can accomplish, by any means. This has always been so. I don't accuse one side more than the other, I think it is our basic system that rewards this type of behavior.

As another poster mentioned, truth does not matter, once something is said and believed, it becomes truth. One of the more chilling movie moments recognized this. When DiNiro, in Wag the Dog, said "the war is over, the TV news said so". This is where we are and have been for much of our history.

If there is a solution, it is to be suspect whenever a political leader is talking. As a dyed in the wool cynic, this is where I am. We have to remove whomever the incumbent may be. The only chance (and its a small one) to prevent this type of behavior is to punish it. Vote them out. Get rid of them.

FWH

[Voltaire99]

57. An answer to Krugman's final sentence: 'How did this happen?'

"How did our political system get to this point?"

Rhetorical or not, the question is easy to answer.

Years and years of the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the GOP--in fact, going all the way back to Reagan--brought us here. Surrender brought us here. Corporate politics brought us here. Pandering to wealth and power brought us here.

It's insufficient merely to scold the GOP, when one's own party is a willing accomplice.

Afraid to be an opposition party? Bending over and calling it pragmatism? Settling for GOP-lite because "winning is everything"?

It's no mystery what happens. Thugs have their way. As in life, so in politics: every bully knows pushovers when they see 'em.