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

[Swift2]

Here's something I got in an e-mail this AM-->

Remember, you do not need to be a Democrat to participate in the primary. Republicans and unaffiliated voters who choose "Decline to State" as their party preference can vote for Senator Obama.

Once someone is registered as "Decline to State," here's how it works:

Unaffiliated voters must specifically request a Democratic ballot. If they are voting in person, they can request the ballot at the polling place.
If they are voting by mail, they must contact their County Elections Officer and request a Democratic ballot by January 29th:http://my.barackobama.com/CAVoteByMail

I guess this is bipartisanship, huh?

[abroadabroad]

A few years ago there was a building here in Berlin that had burned completely down behind its ornate facade. Someone decided to keep the facade up and build a hotel behind it, so for a long time you could see the empty lot behind the windows of this beautiful facade. That's what Obama is. What he would symbolize about America to the rest of the world may be reason enough to elect him, but if you are looking for more, you'd be wise to look elsewhere.

[sarnold49]

I don't understand what the hell is wrong with the democratic party. Obama associated himself with JFK & Reagan(these two were nothing alike) and associated Clinton with Nixon. Then he said the republicans were the party of ideas. Then Bushes spiritual advisor came out in support of Obama. Now here in N.C. there are commercials on T.V. every few minutes with republicans praising Obama. Republicans do not support democrats EVER unless the democrats aren't democrats like LIEberman but even with him they didn't come out and support him like they are with Obama!

Stop drinking the kool-aid people! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a republican duck!!!

[StephenDedalus82]

What I'm tired of is Obama talking down to liberals and Democrats in a PRIMARY contest. We were around in the 90s. We know what the Republicans did to divide this country for their own benefit. Yet Obama consistently trots out the David Brooks version of reality in which both sides are to blame--that's a clever way for Republicans to escape the fact that most of the problems are their fault. THEY are the ones who, rather than attempting to work with Bill Clinton, chose to entrap him into perjury then impeach him over a BJ. THEY are the ones who are using the filibuster threat to paint the Democratic Congressional majority as do-nothings. THEY are the bigot-baiters. THEY are the warmongers. THEY are the fleecers of the American middle class. Hillary Clinton has said this. I want Obama too as well. If he can't bring himself to act like a Democrat even during the primary then I want nothing to do with him. He's letting the Republicans off easy and selling snake oil by pretending they'll roll over and play dead for him and him alone.

[jade7243]

I would like Paul Krugman to shut the hell up. While he is entitled to his opinion, there are millions of us who think he is just dead wrong in his assessments. And we are entitled to our opinion too.

Krugman goes out of his way to bash Obama. If he has a dog in this fight, I would prefer that he shout from the rooftops how wonderful Hillary is (or John Edwards, but I suspect any praise Krugman offers is faint praise).

Now, if people -- from Krugman to Clinton to CNN to Jim Clyburn and everyone else -- would actually READ what Obama said (or listen to it because there is video of the discussion) you will see and hear that Obama was not giddy with "praise" for Mr. Reagan or the Republicans but matter of fact.

We have "Reagan Democrats" because Reagan did reach out to disaffected Democrats. We do not have Clinton Republicans -- except to describe that group who so hate the former President and his wife.

In 1994, it was the Republicans who brought us -- right wrong or otherwise -- the "Contract With America." That was not something which bubbled up from the Democractic Party.

Reagan gave us "it's morning in America..." Bill Clinton gave us "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Reagan gave us, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." Bill Clinton gave us, "That depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

Okay class, who was transformative? Who was divisive?

[Mystery954]

Both Bill and Corrupt Hillary praised Reagan, so where’s the beef?

[klondiker]

Okay, as much as I respect Krugman, it does seem like he goes out of his way to criticize Obama.

Sort of like Huffington Post and Hillary.

I don't like it when HuffPo attacks Hillary incessantly, and I don't like it when Krugman does it to Obama.

[Denemator]

Reagan was disliked troughout the western world, all the rewriting of history we have come to expect from the republicans will not change that, however for a democratic candidate to espouse this garbage is just plain wrong.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Krugman is a brilliant economist, Ivy League professor, and New York Times columnist. His latest book, "The Conscience of a Liberal" is great reading.

He writes legitimate criticism of Obama's policies and campaign points and out of the woodwork, St. Barack disciples accuse him of being a shill for Hillary -- despite the fact Krugman has not endorsed her, has publicly criticized Clinton policies in the past and if anything talked up John Edwards this year.
I find this "hero-worship" of Barack Obama very disturbing. People who know nothing about Krugman or economics for that matter attack him as a shill for Hillary because someone dared, DARED, criticize their messianic candidate.

It could just be that Obama, despite being a marvellous speaker and candidate, is wrong on the issues, or wrong on how he frames the issues. It's not just the incompetence of Bush he should run against. If we are to have a revival of liberal values and progressive policies, we need a Democrat who can argue why Reagan's policies were wrong for the country with the same fervor that conservatives attacked the New Deal and the Great Society.

Obama is clearly a closet DLC candidate despite his rhetoric. All of his instincts and framing of issues are rightward.

The Democratic base gets it with Obama's non-universal health care plan. Obama may win indepedents, but Clinton is thrashing him with the Democratic party rank-and-file. He's needs to learn something and change in a hurry if he doesn't want to be blown out of the water in closed primary states upcoming.

Instead of attacking Krugman's character for having an honest disagreement with Obama's policies, I think the Obama campaign might LEARN from what he says and ajust his health care policies and his framing of the issues.

Reaganomics doesn't work. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves and you cannot get something for nothing. If Obama's going to win, he's going to have to get more populist and less DLC-like in a hurry.

[Boris]

Every time I hear Obama, I like him less and less.I see him as a cardboard cut out of a black candidate white Liberals can really get behind.

But..what pissed me off was Obama's childish refereneces to the 'excesses of the 60's and 70's' Which excesses? The murder of three American politicians? The corruption of the Nixon administration? Or maybe the marches against the war...the calls for more democracy? The excesses of democracy? If he is trying to bring on board the grumpy old Reagan Democrats, he is losing me. 'Excesses' my Ass...it was the only time that the voice of the people was heard loud and clear and it wasnt pretty. But, I know those were the excesses Reagan worked to overturn and it was run away democracy that he reigned in..

Bite me, Obama, you cardboard pimp.

[chamberslee]

It is amazing that many people on this post never address the issues in the article. The most common approach is an attack of some sort. Is it because they cannot intelligently ague the issues, or are the facts are simply indisputable?

What did Krugman say that is not true? The economic prosperity of the '90s--even if only a perception--was due to Bill Clinton, not republican ideas or policies.

A potential democratic president evoking Reagan's name in admiration--to those who lost their homes, jobs, pensions, savings and loves ones under Reagan—is difficult to accept. Obama made a mistake in doing so, nothing more.

Obama is not above constructive criticism—no candidate is. Attacks are not necessary. Intelligent discussions on the issues enrich us all. You might inform me of something I did not know that changes my mind about a candidate; but when you attack someone and engage in name-calling, the conversation is counterproductive. We are all better than that. Are we not?

To all, take care.

[traveler501]

I was alive then, what Krugman relates is exactly the way I remember it. What is the issue for contention?? Is it that Bill's name is mentioned? Did anyone pick up on the fact that Krugman suggested Clinton made a large error in not going head to head with Reagan's memory? (I didn't have time to read all the comments..­.apologies if..). Hard to accuse him of being a Clinton lackey who also attacks his "boss." Meanwhile, Krugman makes an interesting point. On the other side of that equation, Clinton was trying to build concensus at a time when most Democrats were resisting him exerting Presidential power...the Democratic Congress enjoyed being the principal powers in the Democratic party for most of the previous 40 years. Clinton would have had to attack an ailing, Alzeimer's patient and take on the rabid Right at a time when they were already trying to crucify him with a long series of false allegations and "investigations." (can you say "David Bossie?" LOL) Also, who knew this insanity would mount and mount to such intransigent and excessive levels. A reasonable person might very well expect the Right, notably the Christian Right, to get a few scraps at the table and back off a tad. Instead they seem to have a permanent sense of both entitlement and victimhood. They have proven to be insatiable...but who saw that coming? And isn't now, after so many of Reagan's ideas have been demonstrated to not work yet again...isn't now a more opportune time to put the whole crazy Supply Side/Reagan "singlehandedly brought down Communism" etc apotheosis to rest? Good riddance.
PS is it true that Fred Thompson's only qualification for President is that he is an actor just like Reagan? Maybe next time they will go for a guy who parts his hair the same way.

[Ladyrantsalot]

Er, I read the _Times_ before HuffPo and I can say emphatically that Krugman's column was not an "attack" on Obama but simply a criticism of Obama. It's also a valid criticism. Too many Democrats have sustained the Republican narrative about the glories of Reaganism. Reaganism = Voodoo economics and out-of-control deficits; Reaganism = tax policy benefiting the rich (If you were a student, as I was, during the Reagan years, your taxes went up 30%). Reaganism = anti-envir­onmentalis­m; Reaganism = anti-unionism; Reaganism = speeches at Philadelphia, Mississippi supporting the murderers of civil rights workers; Reaganism = missiles for the ayatollahs of Iran; Reaganism = support for Saddam Hussein. Blech. Obama can have him.

[MrBluebird]

Krugman is brilliant. His analysis(es) are spot on. He is not a direct supporter of any candidate as far as I can tell, but he is willing to call bullshit..­.bullshit.
Reagan was a racist pig, a union buster and the only trickle down we got from him smelled like the men's room.

[rivrgrrl]

As of yet, I haven't heard that Mr Krugman has endorsed Hillary. A couple of minutes checking brought up this from an '05 airing of Meet The Press:

MR. KRUGMAN: I think it's just wildly up in the air. I mean, you know, there's enormous turmoil on the Democratic side trying to figure out--there's a lot of unity but there's a lot of turmoil about what the party stands for. And I just don't know. I mean, I can't--I dread the prospect of a Clinton run just because I think that would be--it would be an attempt to recreate the politics of the '90s when you had Bill Clinton, who was a president who managed to sort of triangulate. And I think we ought to have an election that's really about what what kind of country we're going to be and we won't have that if it's Hillary Clinton running.

Meet the Press, March 6, 2005

If someone knows for a fact that Mr Krugman has since come out in favor of Hillary, please post a link, as I would be very interested in knowing that. (Sad, but still interested.)

Until then, all you who are saying he is backing Hillary are misinformed.