I have often written about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman as representing the epitome of brain dead liberalism. Krugman is the perfect person to spout the party line even if neither the facts nor logic backs it up, because Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economics for work he did regarding the effect of foreign trade. That gives the nonsense he spouts a patina of intellectual respectability, something that is in truly short supply these days in the mainstream media.
Today, Paul Krugman has officially gone around the bend. He has displayed to the world that he must have lost his mind. Today, Paul Krugman has written an article for Rolling Stone in which he declares that president Obama has been a success, A SUCCESS!!!!!!! Here is how Krugman puts it:
“Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history.”
This statement is idiotic and delusional. Think about it; Krugman says Obama is one of the most successful presidents in US history.
Hey Paul, what about these guys:
1. George Washington who led the successful battle in the War of Independence.
2. Abraham Lincoln who held the nation together and ended slavery through the Civil War.
3. Franklin Roosevelt who led the country through the Depression and brought an actual recover to the American economy and then led us through World War II.
4. Dwight Eisenhower who led the invasion of Europe and then solidified the position of the USA and the West against the threat of the USSR and world Communism.
5. Ronald Reagan who energized a stagnant American economy and brought down the Soviet Union.
Krugman thinks Obama belongs in a class with them? Really?
The truth is that Obama is about as successful as James Buchanan, the president who sat and did next to nothing as the country disintegrated into North and South in the years just prior to the Civil War. I would say that Obama is about as successful as Herbert Hoover who presided over the stock market crash of 1929, except that would really be unfair to Hoover who came up with a host of plans to reinvigorate the economy, many of which were undertaken by Roosevelt when he took office. Obama has done nothing and proposed nothing.
I keep thinking not about Obama, however, but about Krugman. If he thinks this is success, what must failure look like to him? (The answer is that for Krugman, failure would be all of our current conditions unchanged with a Republican in the White House.)
Today, Paul Krugman has officially gone around the bend. He has displayed to the world that he must have lost his mind. Today, Paul Krugman has written an article for Rolling Stone in which he declares that president Obama has been a success, A SUCCESS!!!!!!! Here is how Krugman puts it:
“Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history.”
This statement is idiotic and delusional. Think about it; Krugman says Obama is one of the most successful presidents in US history.
Hey Paul, what about these guys:
1. George Washington who led the successful battle in the War of Independence.
2. Abraham Lincoln who held the nation together and ended slavery through the Civil War.
3. Franklin Roosevelt who led the country through the Depression and brought an actual recover to the American economy and then led us through World War II.
4. Dwight Eisenhower who led the invasion of Europe and then solidified the position of the USA and the West against the threat of the USSR and world Communism.
5. Ronald Reagan who energized a stagnant American economy and brought down the Soviet Union.
Krugman thinks Obama belongs in a class with them? Really?
The truth is that Obama is about as successful as James Buchanan, the president who sat and did next to nothing as the country disintegrated into North and South in the years just prior to the Civil War. I would say that Obama is about as successful as Herbert Hoover who presided over the stock market crash of 1929, except that would really be unfair to Hoover who came up with a host of plans to reinvigorate the economy, many of which were undertaken by Roosevelt when he took office. Obama has done nothing and proposed nothing.
I keep thinking not about Obama, however, but about Krugman. If he thinks this is success, what must failure look like to him? (The answer is that for Krugman, failure would be all of our current conditions unchanged with a Republican in the White House.)
No comments:
Post a Comment