send in the clueless

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:33 pm

hard hitting article by krugman on why the GoP field sucks: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

and carville channeling krugman comes up with his own: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/08/opinion/carville-gop-field/index.html?iref=allsearch

basically idiots deserve idiots. the tragedy is that the other half (the rest of us) may have to live with the choice made by the mensa member residents of podunk.

by charvaka Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:15 pm

Good job by Krugman. His take on Romney is spot on -- he isn't a stupid man but plays one.

by TalwarKhan Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:27 pm

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant.

by truthbetold Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:36 pm

enron's CEO Ken lehy was Bush's mentor. World knows it. Bush wore it as a badge of honor to be associated with Ken and Enron. Your suggetion that krugman somehow invented a link is contrary to facts. He just stated facts.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:44 pm

talwarkhan: i'm not sure what your point is. krugman's times article had nothing whatever to do with enron. he was making a point about the republican field and i happen to agree with it, namely, that you have to either be an actual idiot or fake idiocy to win the nomination today.

there was a CNN article on how there is a debate on amongst the evangelicals about whether or not gingrich has repented enough for his infidelity that they can begin to trust him again. firstly, the topic of the debate astounds me.

the topic of discussion is not whether gingrich if elected president can help solve the pressing economic problems; it's not whether gingrich's past ethics sanctions as speaker of the house make him unelectable. instead the most important thing to the evangelicals is that he rested his erection in the wrong vagina! how absolutely clueless and out of touch can they be!

secondly even given their completely misplaced priorities, there is a man who can satisfy them, and oh by the way, he also comes with a serious business resume; but they won't give him a chance. why? because he is a mormon and not a real christian. it doesn't matter that he has a squeaky clean personal life. this is what it takes to get the GoP nomination - a combination of real idiocy and cluelessness, a lagniappe of cynicism, with a smidgeon of hypocrisy thrown in as icing.

by Sponsored content

send in the clueless

send in the clueless

Re: send in the clueless

Re: send in the clueless

Re: send in the clueless

Re: send in the clueless

Re: send in the clueless