For the Bush dead enders Yoni,Ray,WC,GTOWN

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.peterhansen.com/paul_krugman6ghk.htm



Paul Krugman: Bush's New Critics
Paul Krugman addresses conservative commentators who are now criticizing Bush:

The Conservative Epiphany, Bush's New Critics, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Ins ute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now. Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators... But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

The truth is that everything the new wave of Bush critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts. ... The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence.

But as I said, better late than never. Born-again Bush-bashers like Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Sullivan, however churlish, are intellectually and morally superior to the Bushist dead-enders who still insist that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, and will soon be claiming that we lost the war in Iraq because the liberal media stabbed the troops in the back. And reporters understandably consider it newsworthy that some conservative voices are now echoing longstanding liberal critiques of the Bush administration.

It's still fair, however, to ask people like Mr. Bartlett the obvious question: What took you so long?



I decided to act like Yoni now and use other people's words to get my point across... On a side note Krugman is always dead on...

[Wild Cobra]

Wow... it took till 2006 for this guy to complain about president Bush's problems about economics?

President Bush had been good about keeping taxes down, but not good about social spending. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have complained about this aspect of president Bush for years. Even Tony Snow was vocal about the presidents policies before he took on the job as Press Secretary.

Economics is a major reason why republicans lost seats. It's not that the public likes democrats more, but that republicans have historically been more conservative when it comes to government spending. After the republicans took over, they tried to outspend the democrats. President Bush never complained or vetoed this unwarranted spending.

As for the authors credibility...

He worked for Enron during 1999...

[fyatuk]

Economics is a major reason why republicans lost seats. It's not that the public likes democrats more, but that republicans have historically been more conservative when it comes to government spending. After the republicans took over, they tried to outspend the democrats. President Bush never complained or vetoed this unwarranted spending.

A lot of the early spending increases were Bush's desires. Republicans just took advantage and tossed on some rather strange and expensive pork to the high spending President's desires. Something seemed so very wrong in the world when it seemed the Democrats wanted to spend less money than the Republicans on non-military budgets.

[Wild Cobra]

A lot of the early spending increases were Bush's desires. Republicans just took advantage and tossed on some rather strange and expensive pork to the high spending President's desires. Something seemed so very wrong in the world when it seemed the Democrats wanted to spend less money than the Republicans on non-military budgets.

And they wonder why they lost in 2006.

[Yonivore]

On a side note Krugman is always dead on...

Krugman is an idiot and an early BDS sufferer.

[boutons_]

Yoni can't refute the facts Krugman cites, so Krug is an idiot, naturally.

[PixelPusher]

Krugman is an idiot and an early BDS sufferer.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

70% of Americans suffer from BDS. It's a freakin' epidemic I tells ya!

BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is the cutesy epithet the Bushbots use to describe anyone who doesn't think Bush is the infallible one, anointed of God to expand the empire...er, spread Democracy around the world.

[Nbadan]

And they wonder why they lost in 2006.

Corruption? Cronyism? K-street, rubber-stamping the administrations policy with no oversight, one of the leaders of your party chasing under-aged interns, any of those right in a bell?

[Wild Cobra]

Corruption? Cronyism? K-street, rubber-stamping the administrations policy with no oversight, one of the leaders of your party chasing under-aged interns, any of those right in a bell?

You are repeating liberal propaganda. I knew you were a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming, but must you be so obvious?

I was talking about how the republicans lost their base. Not how they have people pissed at them that wouldn't vote for them anyway.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Krugman is an idiot and an early BDS sufferer.

What's he wrong about? This administration has spent money like it's going out of style.

[DarkReign]

Whoopety-doo. Some people came to their senses.

Oh, and btw, the Republicans lost seats in 2006 for no other reason than people wanted a change. Change for change sake.

Because letting Bush run roughshod over the country for his remaining term was much more de able than voting in "them nasty Blues". It just hasnt dawned on some here yet, and probably never will.

[Yonivore]

What's he wrong about? This Congress has spent money like it's going out of style.

There, corrected.

[Peter]

There, corrected.

So the prescription drug benefit wasn't his idea? The invasion of Iraq?

[fyatuk]

So the prescription drug benefit wasn't his idea? The invasion of Iraq?

Well, TECHNICALLY it doesn't matter whose ideas they were, Congress appropriated the funds, and people tend to get mad and do investigations if appropriated funds are not spent.

Therefore, all spending is congressional

That was a fun thoughtline, i'm done now.

[PixelPusher]

Quote: Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
What's he wrong about? This Congress has spent money like it's going out of style. )

There, corrected.

Yoni slept through his middle school civics class during the part where the teacher explained how a presidential veto worked.

[Wild Cobra]

What's he wrong about? This administration has spent money like it's going out of style.

It's not that he's wrong about that aspect, but that he's about four years behind us conservatives saying that.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There, corrected.

Give me a break Yoni. When it was under Republican control, Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush. And vice versa. He's certainly not the fiscal conservative he was when he was voted into office.

Quit being such a ing homer.

[fyatuk]

Give me a break Yoni. When it was under Republican control, Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush. And vice versa. He's certainly not the fiscal conservative he was when he was voted into office.

Quit being such a ing homer.

The Republican controlled Congress of the early Bush term was hardly a rubber stamp. The Republicans buried several pieces of legislation in committee that didn't get pulled out until the leadup to the 2006 election cycle (like Bush's energy bill).

And if you knew anything about Bush when he was first elected, you knew he was no fiscal conservative.

[xrayzebra]

Corruption? Cronyism? K-street, rubber-stamping the administrations policy with no oversight, one of the leaders of your party chasing under-aged interns, any of those right in a bell?

Yeah, sure does, sounds like Kennedy and Barney baby
are on the loose again.

[xrayzebra]

The Republican controlled Congress of the early Bush term was hardly a rubber stamp. The Republicans buried several pieces of legislation in committee that didn't get pulled out until the leadup to the 2006 election cycle (like Bush's energy bill).

And if you knew anything about Bush when he was first elected, you knew he was no fiscal conservative.

There was much about Bush that isn't conservative. If
anyone paid attention to his terms as Governor. He is
much like his Father. Prescription drugs, Kennedy
writing the education bill and immigration issues are
just a few examples of non-conservative actions since
becoming President.