Monday, January 21, 2008

Debunking Krugmanism

NYT's Paul Krugman quotes Bill Clinton to debunk the Reagan Myth.

“The Reagan-Bush years,” (Clinton) declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Bill Clinton said that in 1991. Ah, the Clinton Presidency: The Age of Gilded Lillies.

For years, the Clintons have been little more than their own "special interest."

After all, what was their holding on to the presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal if not a abject lesson in selfishness, irresponsibility, and excess. No doubt they did it to promote the "common good." Wasn't it great how Bill showed us all how to put "family" above his own selfish pursuits?

Obama deserves the Clintons' (and Krugman's) scorn because he had the indecency to notice that during the 80s, the Republican party led by a resurgent conservatism was the party of ideas while the Dems were moribund, running on little more than their own high self-regard.

You know who was great at talking about the "common good" and "public obligation?" Progressives like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. If only they hadn't gone in for all that ugly racism and genocide, they might have realized a Gilded Age of National Socialism.


Anonymous randal said...

Why won't Slick Willie just STFU and go away? That scumbag has no room to talk about Reagan, decency, capitalism or anything else.

January 21, 2008 at 5:59 PM 
Anonymous e said...

Let them go. They are all starting to show their true colors. Democrats think Bill Clinton is "the man". He's Teflon coated. For the last 7 or 8 years he could sit back like a wise old man and tell democrats "how it is" and they all listened. Now Clinton is battling so he can move back into the White House and enjoy some more spoils, with no work load. Think about the shenanigans this guy pulled while he had the busy schedule of the leader of the free world. Now he'll have nothing to do but sit around the White House and watch soap operas all day (or make them).

"As the Country Turns..."

January 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 22, 2008 at 3:28 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Well, Let's see.

According to Jonah Goldberg, Hitler was lured into the German Worker's Party by a speech called, "By What Means Shall Capitalism Be Destroyed."
He was for socialized medicine, universal health care, banning smoking, universal education, guaranteed wages, wealth redistribution, and a populist.

The Nazis argued for Gleichschaltung, "which is a German word for coordination...and the idea was that the entire society needed to work like a giant machine, where all the cogs were linked together and everyone pushed in the same direction."
Yes, I'd say he was pretty "progressive" in today's sense of the word.

As for Obama's comments, it's not me that is twisting them. It is Krugman, Hillary and Bill Clinton. You have to know that, if you have been paying the least bit of attention to Democratic debates and campaigns. Instead, you blame scary neo-cons. Obama doesn't. He blames Bill and Hillary by name and did so again last night during the debate in South Carolina.

Now, I know how sensitive progressives like yourself are with your huge hearts and all. (Hitler loved dogs and children and cried a lot.)
But try not to let your feelings get in the way of the facts when it comes to your candidates. That's a recipe for political disaster.

January 22, 2008 at 5:53 AM 
Anonymous r said...

LOL! OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark, Dave!

Modern Liberalism is the very same as Hilterism. Same thing. ...minus the killing.

January 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM 
Anonymous r said...

He substitutes "progressive" for "oppressive" and the anti-lib lemmings follow him right off the cliff. I realize that part of the neo-con strategy is to falsely define their opponents' philosophy, but the "police state" conservatives have gone so far with this distortion of liberalism that they can't be taken seriously on anything else.

I love how dishonest Libs take what they do and try to turn it around, accusing others of that which they themselves are the guiltiest. Libism will do that to a person. It is based on lies.

January 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the libs, like the Hitleristas, the power is in the people to work as that engine, all pushing ahead with one commonality. The problem with liberalism is that to work they must eliminate freedom. Freedom allows for free thought and self determination, both concepts which are contrary to Hitlerista "collectivism".

Libs these days are like Hitleristas, minus the killing, but only because we still have some freedom. If the liberals have their way we will lose our ablility to defend ourselves (think guns), and we will lose our ability to speak our conscience (think free speech). Both were eliminated by Hitler, then the killing started.

This phenomena is not limited to just Hitler either, it has occurred in every murderous regime to ever exist on this planet - think Stalin and Pol Pot and many others.

Just my thought!

January 22, 2008 at 12:16 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and Clinton's 'peace dividend' of the 90s that took down our deficit also took down our security and military, leaving us vulnerable.

let's also not forget the recession he left us at the end of his term.

January 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Yeah, that’s some god the Dems have. They worship him with selective memory. There is no comparing him to Reagan. Willie shouldn’t even be permitted to say Reagan’s name.

January 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM 
Anonymous Mike said...

I'd love for David to show how Bill did anything to promote the US economy during his presidency. We could have had the dancing baby as our president and gone through the same boom. I guess David forgot most economists consider the technology bubble the exact opposite of the great depression.

January 22, 2008 at 11:07 PM 
Anonymous r said...

That's right, much of those good Willie times the Dems wistfully recall were really just a big hollow Dot.Com bubble that busted. I thought everyone witnessed that. Funny how the Dems elect to forget it.

And it was Willie who signed NAFTA.

January 23, 2008 at 12:07 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 23, 2008 at 12:54 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

As David is wont to do, he attempts to rewrite history. And not only the relatively ancient history of the 1930s and 1980s but very recent history as well.

It is, of course, very telling that he dismisses what Jonah Goldberg says about Hitler's Nazism being wrapped in the progressive agenda of anti-capitalism, "fair" wages, health consciousness, totalitarian socialism and what was very popular among progressives as the time, eugenics. (See H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger et al.)

David simply says that Goldberg has been "discredited." His source? A single post by an angry left-wing kook on the Huffington Post.

Goldberg's book recently hit Number 1 at Pretty good for "toilet paper."

I don't doubt that Hitler didn't bother to get warrants for searches. Neither did FDR.

His locking up Japanese Americans in detainment camps was another example of a "progressive" administration resorting fascist-like measures during wartime. I'm willing to forgive if not forget. While stepping up to protect the country, the Bush Administration has become more aggressive in pursuing terrorists with wire-taps and the like. There is an argument to be made that at times the administration has gone too far but you fail to make it.

Goldberg, for one, doesn't say that liberal=fascism. In fact, he goes to great pains to say it doesn't.
What he does point out is that many liberals/progessives have support and argued for policies that are fascist in nature and practice. If you bothered to read his book instead of simply a simple-minded post abou it, you might recognize that.

Reagan inherited 10 percent unemployment and the stagnation of the Carter years.

He cut taxes, helped to get the economy back on track and, oh yeah, won the Cold War (with the help of a few good, wild-ass Democrats like Charlie Wilson.)

Clinton's risk-averse presidency was fine except for his inability to keep his pants up and his penchant for lying and obstructing justice.

He didn't muck up the economy. He signed welfare reform (one of those dreaded Republican ideas) and helped save a few hundred thousand Muslims in Eastern Europe from being slaughtered by Serbs. (Note that he didn't go to the UN for permission.)

He passed NAFTA (another one of those awful Republican ideas) good for America and good for the global economy.

But he left the country more vulnerable that it should have been to terrorist attack. He had different priorities. Fair enough.

Now, as for Obama's remarks concerning Republican's ideas of the 80s, just try to pay attention and get this:

When I wrote:

"Obama deserves the Clintons' (and Krugman's) scorn because he had the indecency to notice that during the 80s, the Republican party led by a resurgent conservatism was the party of ideas" -- I was writing from the point of view of Krugman and the Clintons.

They were the ones who jumped all over him and misrepresented what he was saying. Not Me, you simple-minded dink.

It was Bill and Hillary Clinton who twisted what he had to say as if HE said the 80's conservatives' ideas were all good ones.

And Obama called them on it. Where have you been, if you don't GET THAT.

You wrote:
"Any suggestion that Obama agreed with the ideas themselves, rather than concept of needing to capture the public's imagination, is completely dishonest and a misrepresentation of his point."


And that's what BOTH Clintons did.

How out of character for them to be "completely dishonest and misrepresent" someone else's statement for their own political purposes.

How hilarious that you refuse to see this. Maybe the stars in your eyes are blocking your view.

January 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM 
Anonymous e said...

One of the other "first things" the Nazi's did was cease all private ownership of firearms. Sound familiar?

January 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Youch! Man, Gil, take it easy on poor Dave! Don’t you feel bad for pummeling him like that? Nah, me neither.

You’re onea them that will go to any legnth to defend your god Willie, huh, Dave? And you’re also a member of the Eternally Hurt Feelings Over the 2000 Election Results crowd. [*hands Dave a hanky] So clearly nothing Bush could do would you give him credit for. Hurt Feelings blind partisanship will do that to a guy.
Although peppered in with your dishonest slant and LibDem platitudes were a couple of truths. But tell us, just who was it that appointed the brilliant Greenspan and kept him onboard through four presidencies? And you’d have us believe that somehow Repubs flubbed while the economy flourished under Willie, all while following the same man’s advice? Even when faced with evidence to the contrary? Hehe.

Willie sure left his mark on the Oval Office. (Gag)

Hey, you never told us who the Cons kill! I wanna hear this!

January 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Gil -Right on! The David Diano's of this world place great weight on hysteria and little weight on history or facts. In fact, just try to debate one of those people publicly, and you encounter the same thing. For the dems it is all about repeating the same talking points. We all know that the average person is too lazy to undertake their own independent review of the accuracy of what they say, so it becomes truth to them.

In fact, one of my neighbors was talking to me about global warming and when I disputed several issues about her position she looked at me in disgust and told me that I need to start reading the NY Times and watch the news because that is all they talk about. Wow, I am really stupid.

January 23, 2008 at 4:30 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

For the dems it is all about repeating the same talking points. We all know that the average person is too lazy to undertake their own independent review of the accuracy of what they say, so it becomes truth to them.

Isn’t that classic Marxism or Goebelism or something?

At any rate, this is indeed the common method of implementation of Modern Liberalism on virtually every topic. They know they have to speak at the simpletons’ level and lie to the rest of us, otherwise they’d never be able to implement their Libism crap. It/they would have been kicked to the curb long ago.
If something can’t stand up to scrutiny on its own merits and requires lying in order to sell it to people, it is well time to reexamine the quality of the product being hawked and the motives of those pushing it.

January 23, 2008 at 4:42 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 24, 2008 at 2:57 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Aren’t you deviating from Liberalism “tolerance” when you assail Huck for being religious, Dave? Oh, that’s right, all that Lib noise about tolerance is only for other folks. I forgot. My bad.

While I prefer Obama over Clinton as more honest, direct and having better ideas, Clinton is still twice as good as the entire field the GOP has put up this election.

Translation: While the Lib racial apologist in me supports the black candidate regardless of his lack of qualifications for the job, I fear he cannot win the general election. So my blind partisanship and rabid irrational hatred for anything and everything Republican will force me to go with Hill who I see as having a better chance.

Black O and Mrs. Willie are doing a pretty good job of embarrassing the Donkey Party too!

January 24, 2008 at 3:17 AM 
Anonymous steve mcdoanld said...

someone PLEASE explain why Hillary is most qualified for the job. I don't see it, I don't think I ever will. Dave, the floor is yours, best of luck.

January 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 24, 2008 at 10:46 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


I don't know you, so I can't say that I dislike you, but your comment about my stupidity is pretty funny. How about you show up tomorrow night at the Democracy Unplugged event in Swarthmore. I will be there as the token conservative. I would love to meet you and debate you in public about any political or legal issue you want. You are obviously so smart this will be your perfect opportunity to take me down in public. Hope to see you there.

January 24, 2008 at 10:49 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


You wrote:

"The ultra-conservatives are worried because she is competent and will undo the extreme policies they've put into place. She will also select pro-choice supreme court judges to protect Roe vs Wade."

Do you really believe that? What "extreme" policies have been put in place by "ultra conservatives"? Also, Roe v. Wade is one of the biggest legal obominations ever decided. That decision created a constitutional right to something that you don't have a constitutioanl right to do, just like what happened in Lawrence v. Texas, except in Lawrence the Supreme Court relied on precedent from the European Human Rights Commission. I am sure you know exactly what I am talking about since you are so smart and I am just a petty idiot.

That is liberalism at its best, especially when we cede our sovereingty to law from other nations. Remember what Chief Justice Roberts said...

January 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

The Bush-haters are always weeping about how America is viewed by the rest of the world and how we’re not respected anymore.
So what is the likelihood that the misogynistic Muslim Middle East is going to respect a woman U.S. president? If for no other reason this is cause to preclude Hillary from being president at this critical time in the war on terror when we need the respect and cooperation of as many Arab nations as we can get.
Much like their insistance that we wage politically correct warfare, see how touchy-feely Lib identiy politics can have very real harmful impact. Such misguided Libism should be excluded from government altogether.

Hey, maybe the Arabs would like Barack Hussein Osama better, seeing how he’s almost one of their own!

January 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we only all thought like Hillary or B. Hussein Obama, we would finally have pece in our time. Oops, is that what Neville said. I digress, but the point is and always has been that these Arab nations are not filled with nice people, and that it is our Christianity that they really hate, not America, at least as long as they continue to get US monetary aid.

When they get the nuclear weapon and hold Europe hostage (before they detonate it) then the libs will start asking "what happened", and it will already be too late when they are forced to finally "get it".

January 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Yes. That is but another reason everyone should stop listening to the cowardly Libs.

I advocate a complete separation of Liberalism and State as a constitutional ammendment.

January 24, 2008 at 11:49 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home