Krugman Attacks Obama's Reagan Comments

NY Times:

Historical narratives matter. That's why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

And it's also why the furor over Barack Obama's praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[PKSSK]

I am disappointed that Mr. Krugman fails to point out that the Clinton years reinforced Reagonomics with banking and media deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, NAFTA and welfare reform. Clinton sold out the middle class to benefit the rich! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!

Would someone please tell us how the Clinton's helped the middle class and protected African Americans????

[raker]

A criticism is only an "attack" when you're trying to portray the critic in a bad light. Krugman, as always, is right.

[lizardbox]

Watch the whole interview here (and hopefully have the smarts to draw your own conclusions)

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026

Krugman's piece is very close-minded and backwards. I highly doubt that he took the time to watch the whole interview.

[cambio]

Oh, and I should point out that while the Clintons and their lapdog Krugman are disingenuously attacking Obama for "praising Reagan" (which if you have an ounce of intelligence in your head you would understand that isn't what he was saying at all), the media likes to gloss over the fact that Hillary has stated on the record (indeed, it is on her website) that Reagan is one of her favorite presidents (along with Bush Sr).

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

Yes, I couldn't agree more. They can lie all they want about what Obama meant when he was offering a factual historical observation about political change, but Obama never said Reagan was one of his favorite presidents. The hypocrisy of the Clintons, and their attack dogs, is appalling. I'm disgusted with them, as I'm disgusted with all of the people who say ridiculous unsubstantiated crap like "Obama loves Reagan". Now I'm sure a lot of these people say this because they are ignorant and don't know any better, but I know the Clintons, Krugman, and a good many others DO know that this is a load of crap, yet continue to deceive and spin all the same, for their own personal gain. The public is who loses in all of this. They have lost all of my respect.

[cambio]

This just further proves that ever since Obama disagreed with Krugman over healthcare and hurt Krugman's pride he has been on a personal vendetta against Obama. First of all, Krugman was wrong on the healthcare. Krugman is an economist, and is out of his element in politics, he needs to stay out. Now he is jumping on the ignorance boat to attack Obama on his Reagan comments. Now I don't think Krugman (nor Hillary, Bill or Edwards) are truly ignorant enough to not understand the historical observation Obama was making, because the argument wasn't all that complicated, and I think anyone with a undergraduate education should have the cognitive skills to understand such an argument. No, I think Krugman, just like the Clintons, is seizing on this opportunity to distort Obama's observations and use it to attack him. The Clintons obvious do this because they want to win. Krugman does it because he has his panties in a twist over Obama disagreeing with him. What they have in common is exploiting the ignorance of the common person by purposely distorting Obama's point, basically deceiving the average Joe or Jane into thinking that Obama was praising Reagan. Now the Clintons and Krugman both know that this isn't true, but they are willing to deceive the public about it anyway, all to get ahead and to put down Obama. It is pretty despicable if you ask me. The GOP relies on misleading the public to get ahead, and I thought Democrats were above that, but apparently not. My opinion of both the Clintons and Krugman is slipping by the day. They have both acted not only like Republicans (in the deception and dirty tricks sense), but also like children, and I'm disgusted with all of them.

[OETKB]

The problem is not with Paul Krugman but with ourselves. He holds these candidates to a higher standard than they are willing to aspire.

Pres Reagan, a conservative icon, was a terrible chief executive, period. He invaded Grenada for goodness sakes.

It is more a call for sharper introspection on the needs of the country, not pandering to conservative, self indulgent elements because of fear of turning them off, no matter how wrong they are.

It is this thinking that stopped the impeachment of Richard Nixon, caused invasions of countries we have no business entering, or ignored and continue to ignore those who work hard and seem to get a significantly lesser share of the nation's wealth.

We know already that Sen Clinton's foreign affairs judgment is poor and she sports a dubious resume. However Sen Obama must sharpen his vision for this country using progressive ideas, not a version trying to placate those who
want to destroy government. Otherwise, it is a guaranteed nomination for Hillary Clinton. These powerful forces give little care to their fellow citizens who are in fact the source of their wealth.

Neither Clinton or Obama has tuned into the pulse of those who are not getting their fair share of what is produced in this country.

[JakeEasy]

Barack supporters condemn Hillary for not repudiating her vote for the war powers act. Senator Obama can clear this up by repudiating his statements. Or at least he can make clear that he thinks Reagan and his policies are crap. He could probably say it more eloquently, but he needs to say this so that there is no confusion about his "feelings" for the man.

Of course, that would mean he couldn't stand on both sides of so many issues and get support from both sides. Mr. Krugman is right to say that this is important. When you curry favors with the neocons, you can't help but end up smelling bad. Plus they will take your compliments, publicize them, then eat your liver for lunch.

[armadillious2002]

Amen Krugman. The Reagan policies failed miserably. Massive military buildups while cutting taxes resulted in a run away National debt that reached the trillions under his watch.

Bank failures and bankruptcies went through the roof. There were many rural towns where every bank failed, and if I were running for office I would be pounding this fact home to the electorate every damned day.

Obama had my support till he spewed out that crap about Reagan. This shows me his naivity. I think on Obama - I'll pass.

[Boobaloo]

Well, in 1988 Reagan did call Nelson Manedela a terrorist & the ANC a terrorist organization.

[Janus]

Okay, we can see that there is increasing chaos forming within the Democratic ranks, bringing joy not only to the ultra-right Neoconic-Fascists in charge of the currently inaptly named Republican Party but also to all the mouth-breathing Dupes on HuffPost who politically and economically fornicate themselves and middle/lower middle class Americans by cheering them on.

Now look what's coming into the fray. Old grovelling Ari never saw a billionaire he couldn't love nor a middle class legislative benefit he couldn't destroy. See what this obnoxious thug is up to.

http://webmail.att.net/wmc/v/wm/47951B38000B027E00006F3D22193122529B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF9B0A0C0704070C9C?cmd=Next&no=4&sid=c0

[lovethesinner]

Krugman defeats his premise in conflating economic "dynamism" with political consensus. Obama's remarks came to bury Clinton, not to praise Reagan. He's right to suspect that Obama's statement was an attempt to curry favor with Republican voters, but they in no way suggested that his policies were good, or that he endorsed them.

I think Paul is still trying to get that job at the White House that Bill Clinton passed him over for. Either that or he's trying to absolve his guilt for being a part of Reagan's economic team in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#Biography

[teahead]

Hillary said that one of her FAVORITE Presidents was Ronald Reagan.

Hmmm...talk about praise.

[godlessclif]

First Obama bashes Hillary for mentioning Martin Luther King's collaboration with Lyndon Johnson and now Obama praises Reagan for burying Martin Luther King and misquoting him. Reagan was the first Republican that quoted MLKs line "Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin" to be a rejection of affirmative action.
MLK was for affirmative action. Trust me, I was there when MLK went to school in Boston.

[Mystery954]

Let’s be honest, Bill Clinton a.k.a Jim Jones was not a better president than Ronald Reagan.

With Bill Clinton a.k.a. Jim Jones you had a failed attempts on health care reform, the Monica Lewinsky affair, Whitewater scandal, the 93 WTC bombing, the non-intervention in Rwandan Genocide, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Waco Siege, etc…

Bill Clinton a.k.a. Jim Jones at best was an average president. He’s in the same level as G.H. Bush, William Taft and Martin Van Buren.

[phathalo]

I am glad Krugman took up this bogus issue.

Krugman has sounded like he was attacking Obama gratuitously before -- on issues but now he shows himself to be a hatchetman