Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Krugman: GOP Is the Party for Fools

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times. Posted August 9, 2008.


Partisan politics are unlikely to end any time soon -- not as long as the GOP believes that when it comes to politics, idiocy is the best policy.
Advertisement

So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: "Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!" O.K., I added that last part.

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I've been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the "party of ideas," have become the party of stupid.

Now, I don't mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don't mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism -- the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise -- has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: "The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking," said Representative John Shadegg.

What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be "insignificant"? Presumably they're just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, "want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs."

Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don't count on it.

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, "They attacked us, and we're going to strike back" -- and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren't the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

Let's also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. "Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man," declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. "He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world."

It wasn't until Hurricane Katrina -- when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, "if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help" revealed the true costs of obliviousness -- that the cult began to fade.

What's more, the politics of stupidity didn't just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.

Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly -- that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.

All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. Bush's plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right.

Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling -- and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

The headway Republicans are making on this issue won't prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains -- and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country's problems. It's not going to happen -- not as long as one of America's two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

© 2008 The New York Times

AlterNet is making this New York Times material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gop, paul krugman, partisanship

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We remember very well Krugman
Posted by: weathered on Aug 9, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how the Iraq war was 'sold' to us, it was the NY Times that was one of biggest advertisers.

The NYTimes died on 9/11
it got crushed in its own rubble.

Arrest Silverstein/Bushcon and heal or stay stuck in the Lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Men behind curtain Posted by: Gonnuts
» RE: Men behind curtain Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Men behind curtain Posted by: buzzsaw
Krugman's title is incomplete.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 9, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should've said, "Party for fools, rich bigots, racist rednecks, gun nuts, homophobes, hypocrites, fascists, control freaks and womanizers" -- to name a few undesirable Americans.

With love,

*Hugh E. Scott, 73, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican and ardent Obama supporter.
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

*For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors to give context to this comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slight Correction. Posted by: edgar1
» Lionheart appears to be.... Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Slight Correction. Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Slight Correction. Posted by: LionHeart
There are two kinds of Republicans:
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 9, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two kinds of Republicans:
millionaires and suckers.

-John Dolan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You, too, ranchero42. Spot on! Posted by: HughScott
» Well said, Phred42! Posted by: HughScott
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Stupid People, stupid policies
Posted by: Sons on Aug 9, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
71% of Americans are "absolutely certain" of the existence of that imaginary friend for adults, God.

Without one shred of evidence they believe this.

What should we expect then when it comes to things like WMD, Al Quiada training in Iraq and the rest?

Teaching Americans to hold beliefs only when there is hard evidence would undoubtedly improve the nation.
Sons

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 71% are incompetent at their job Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Left/Right Wrong
Posted by: Gonnuts on Aug 9, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Krugman is frustrating in that he bites but never draws blood. Maybe it's the fact that he does have editors he has to get past and like Olberman there are subjects MSM will never breach.

Fact is only dimmest of bulbs believe in left/right paradigm anymore. Our whole political system is corrupt, neither party represents 98% of the people and soon we'll pay a very dear price for falling prey to this folly that we may never recover from.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Krugman's pretty good. Posted by: nap
The Times Rejected This Post on Krugman's Column....Why?
Posted by: jay diamond on Aug 9, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the principle reason why this GOP wave of stupidity resonates so overwhelmingly is the pernicious effect of low-brow, rightwing, talk radio.

Taken cumulatively, the political pornography of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher, Michael Reagan, Gordon Liddy, et al, represent a holocaust of pathological mendacity and dumbness.

The scandal though, resides in the truth that the various individuals behind the microphone are fungible; completely interchangable and easily replaced by other equally unscrupulous and ambitious vipers eager to speak falsehoods to the powerless on behalf of the true inspiration behind this crude and destructive torrent of hate...the corporate broadcasting networks and their criminally irresponsible managers, and the advertisers who nourish this beast knowing that anyone who takes this drivel seriously is an easy mark who will obediently purchase the junk they advertise on these toxic "show".

The best thing that could happen to our country is for the millions of citizens of normal and above intelligence to force themselves to listen to this disgraceful drivel on low-brow, rightwing radio so that they understand why the political culture of their country is now equivalent to a truck demolition derby.>>

Think I'm exaggerating ?

Well, just think back to the 2000 election. The vicious and stupid talk radio is what put Bush within 543,000 votes of Gore nationally, and tied with Gore in Florida; close enough for the Supreme Court to steal it for him !

And the wave of radio poison that amplified the swift boat smears and all the other GOP defamations targeting John Kerry, was again the margin of "victory" for Rove in 2004 !

What is most disappointing is the odd reluctance of most political commentators and columnists (sadly, including Professor Krugman) to confront this vexing, dangerous, and obscenely idiotic phenomenon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Brilliant You Are Posted by: edgar1
Not New
Posted by: Officer009 on Aug 9, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Krugman is right, except this is not something new. The Republicans have made intentional willful ignorance the basis of the party for as long as I can remember, which is since the early 70's. The really sad part is how the Democrats at the national level aided and abetted the shadow theater.

I have an interesting personal experience of the Republican base. A life-long progressive, in 2000 I took a local county job in a rock solid rural Republican county. The professionals in the office are college educated, but at least 50% are fundamentalist christians (the most evolution denying, 6000 year old earth, homophobic variety). I found only one person with whom I could have satisfying intellectual conversations. This person was a lifelong Republican, active in the local party, voted for Bush in 2000 and a believer that the Clintons had been involved in murdering a number of people around them. Yet, after several years of wide ranging conversations, it turns out that he is a supporter of Unions and employee rights, truly believes in the rights and liberties protected in the constitution, is completely against our militaristic foreign policy approach and the wars, concedes that capitalism is not sacrosanct and even supports nationalizing oil and other resources.

Still this fellow would never consider voting for Obama and in fact I don't think he would ever vote for any Democratic candidate for President. He is equally adamant he cannot vote for McCain. You tell me how a man like this spent most of his adult life drinking the kool-aid and enabling the Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not New Posted by: democraticcritique.us
Need a Revival of 'Old School Repubs & DEMS!!
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 9, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both Parties are filled with corporationists. The Clintons have proven their allegience to the same corps as Cheney et al.
I see HillaBilly no different then I see McCain since she entered the Senate.
Hillary & Mac were Horses from the same Stable, a Win/Win for the Corps.
Why do you think she is not conceding- she was promised a Win or Place. If Mac wins- she can try again in 2012. If Obama wins she's screwed. So suddenly she releases her Big donors, which such short sighted writers like Tiabbi immediately report as 'Obama's Sell Out'. Well that works just great for her- doesn't it. Re affirming the 'Just a Speech' comment- pushing the 'lefties' over to vote for the long time Dem Red herring - Nadar.I trust the Clintons Now as much as I Trust CheneyCorp. Working both sides against the middle. If Obama rejected these donors and advisors- he could lose just because of cash flow. But more importantly, He would lose becasue they would release these Hounds against him- and in support of Mac (her buddy and co conspirator in election fraud).
As they say 'Don't hate the player, hate the game'. Hillary has never been a Democrat or even an old School Republican - she is a corporationist, with an eye on the Prize
fuck over both sides of the Corp machine...

Obama/Hagel '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wall St owns them all Posted by: edgar1
Dems-Repubs are both parties of big business
Posted by: chlamor on Aug 9, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supporting Democrats or Republicans is a serious political disorder, like alcoholism or returning again & again to an abusive spouse who repeatedly lies to you. It's easy to fall off the wagon, to make excuses & rationalizations for it.

Even many whose views are developed enough to recognize such truths as the fundamental rottenness of the 2-party system & the complicity of Democrats in all of the Republicans' major crimes, are still unable to draw the logical consequences of these insights. (Those so naive that they still conceive of Democrats as being the "opponents" of Republicans are another case altogether.)

The central point is this: capitalist society permits the Democrats to be one of the 2 allowed parties for a very definite reason. It's not because the Democrats "serve the people." It's because in a subtle but effective way, they help the capitalists keep the populace under control by providing them with the illusion of possible change. TPTB don't want the people "served." They want them managed, or controlled.

It is the job, the central social function of the Democrats to always be dangling before the people's noses vague pseudo-hints of possible change, so as to keep them from bolting from bourgeois politics altogether. It is the Democrats' intention to never deliver meaningful change, but rather to keep dangling hints of it alluringly forever. This produces control -- a populace habituated to remain safely within the lines required by ruling class interests.

This is why the Democrats NEVER paint a picture of US history that's the slightest bit accurate -- they want a brainwashed population every bit as much as the Republicans do. This is why they NEVER are willing to set forth an honest socioeconomic analysis of why things are as they are -- they much prefer that people not understand such things.

As long as a large chunk of voters can be deceived by the seemingly "nicer guy" act of the Democrats, there is no hope whatever of coming to grips with the core problems of our society. The most dangerous trends -- a wasteful consumer society, environmental destruction, grotesque social inequality, and an uncontrollable propaganda/war machine -- cannot even be approached within the framework of bourgeois politics, because they all serve ruling class interests. This is what is really being protected, when people opt to support Democrats just because they seem less blatantly cruel on TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But are the Dems the lesser evil?
Posted by: chlamor on Aug 9, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aren't the Dems The Lesser Evil?

The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one focuses on the noble efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what Republicans more ardently promulgate, & the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal." Similarly, if the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

Doesn't the presence of the Dennis Kuciniches, Cynthia McKinneys, et al "prove" that the Democrats are progressive? No. The Kuciniches and McKinneys are indeed significantly different from the Hillary types -- but there are compelling reasons not to get too excited about them, either. First, they are used by the party as a "Left decoration," simply to keep potential left defectors in tow. Secondly, the party power brokers will NEVER in a million years let the Kucinich-McKinney faction have any real power.

In other words, the very modestly-sized progressive Dem faction is cynically used as a marketing tool by the national party. They are dangled before your eyes to make you think that the Dems are the "lesser evil" (since the Republicans offer no such Left decorations). The existence of a few decent Dems makes no real difference in the overall alignment of the party, and they will never be internally influential. They are a distraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Critical Unacceptance Posted by: pdxjoe
» "Democracy" vs. Democracy Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: "Democracy" vs. Democracy Posted by: justAnEgg
Scene: Republican congressmen
Posted by: surfreality on Aug 9, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the dark.
VO: " Republican congressmen have taken to meeting in the Capital building with the lights out, they are literally in the dark ; how APPROPRIATE is that?
On every American issue , the Republicans truly ARE in the dark:
(As the VO continues the following words scroll down the screen)
Katrina
Healthcare
Mortgage crisis
Conservation
Global warming
Renewable energy
tax cuts for billionaires
Inflation
Job losses
The right to choose
Iraq
taking care of veterans
imperial presidency
Secret government
Subverting the Constitution...

Bring the light back to Washington DC.
This Nov. send the republicans home.
Vote Democratic.
Vote Obama"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only the Elite Need Apply Posted by: edgar1
has anyone else noticed...
Posted by: ellie on Aug 9, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that our only job as americans is to consume and pay taxes blindly?? as the old film 'soylent green' said, we are just 'eaters'...

if everyone in the country voted or no one voted at all, the final results would wind up the same... we do not matter anymore...

have you tried to get a politician to listen to you??? you get the nod, pat on the back, the pic of you and the politician with a cheezy grin and whamo, back to business as usual...

our opinions, sentiments and needs are secondary to political aspirations and corporate profits and we allow this to continue... we have little chance of changing the system with 'a damned piece of paper' the constitution or any other means...

we are expected to smile while we get screwed over and like it too...

this place, this country is shot... wake up to the reality and don't forget that happy smile while waving that credit card and spending wildly!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: has anyone else noticed... Posted by: greycement
are they really stupid?
Posted by: nap on Aug 9, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A quick scan of why conservative politicians would appear stupid(and some reasons clearly apply more generally):

I think the main reason the war got support - or too little opposition - was that many believed it was a sure win. That placed those who opposed it in a very bad position, either nationally or internationally. The WMD claims then had to provide a convincing narrative. The WMD threat had stockmarket value: you 'buy' the idea because you can sell it again, not because of its inherent value. The WMD's didn't have to pose a real threat but preferably they had to be real, which didn't seem too hard. A stock of mustard gas, which is a WWI era weapon, would confirm the narrative. Unfortunately the claims broke down, but if the narrative is strong enough you still have the fallback position: "we've been fooled and misled but who wouldn't have been". So there can be stupidity, but the baseline is not commonsense thinking, you have to judge stupidity referring to the baseline of political logic and political survival. It's not something to be taken lightly: if you ignore the logic of political survival you don't survive in politics.

Second stupidifier: distributed lies. Once everybody gets in the game you lose your reference of truth. The bookkeeping of what is truth and what is not gets messed up. The mighty wurlitzer works like that too.

Third , perceived stupidifier: what conservatives look like from liberal point of view. An attitude saying "we have to show them who's the boss" may seem silly, but it's just conservative thinking, and to some extent it makes sense. Kissinger is a strong defender, and Chomsky always saw the US as the maffia don. It's not plain stupid.

Fourth corporate feeding frenzy benefiting from caricature fringe thinking, eg plain corruption providing the justification for why there should be oil drilling. The rest has to be made up.

Fifth, conservative thinking actually drifting towards the caricature fringe. I'm running out of breath here, things to do you know, I'll think of that later :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: are they really stupid? Posted by: edgar1
stupid simple answers abound in both parties
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 9, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats are any better? -a windfall profits tax to finance a thousand dollar bribe per family? come on. how many barrels of oil or megawatts of solar power will that gimmick generate? how about a windfall profits on the banks that charge 26% on credit cards? Can't do that. They support the Democrats!

both parties and their corporate sponsors, including the New York Times Company for which Mr. Krugman works,treat the public like the idiots, which the public are. The public can't be told that it, the public, is primarily responsible for the energy mess, the housing mess and the environmental squalor that our suburbs and expansion into watersheds and fragile ecosystems have caused. the credit card society was fine for a while and the public didn't mind Bush's economic policies of printing money until just this year. but when the bankers pull the plug, they're just saving their butts. what did the public expect? and what "change" does Krugman expect from Obama and his Wall St supporters at JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

democraticcritique.us
Posted by: democraticcritique.us on Aug 9, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be sure, there is a difference surrounding many GOP mentalities. But "stupid" is not the crux of it. And name-calling never achieves understanding. The difference involves neurons and synapses. See www.democraticcritique.us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could you forget?
Posted by: memci on Aug 9, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Paul --- How could you not know that REAL WOMAN THINK 24/7 365? I thought you knew we've had voting rights for about 88 years and with this comes political identities. Ask Hillary if you are in a quandary! Mareliz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Split foolishness
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Aug 9, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to the war in Iraq, health care, corporate welfare, the drug war and sexual expression, the Republicans are the party of fools, no doubt. But regrettably, when it comes to energy, the Democrats are equally foolish. Anyone who can't see the wisdom of cutting our dependence on foreign suppliers while at the same time generating jobs for our own people is a damn fool. The American people see it. And the shame is Obama may well lose because of this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Krugman's Right--Knownothingism
Posted by: maggiemahar on Aug 9, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Krugman's right-- Conservatives have used
knownothingism and appeals to the reptilian part of the brain for decades.

Their supposedly astute "framing" of issues is really just a matter of reducing ideas to bumper-stickers and slogans that are very much like advertising slogans. They don't inspire thought; they make the mind click shut like a box.

That's the way propaganda works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Truth here Truth Now..!"
Posted by: TJColatrella on Aug 9, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As too "drill here drill now" if only Obama would explain that these prices are due to the Republicans such as Phil Gramm and the effect of the Deregulation of the Commodities and Futures Market they pushed down America's throat he'd be higher in the polls and winning over more American's than you think..!

Obama's missing a golden opportunity due to his being compromised by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley who are engaged in economic asymmetrical warfare against America and it's economy..!

Obama has to choose is it the American people or the criminal bankers he represents..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only worry ...
Posted by: Gonnuts on Aug 9, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is how Powers-That-Be (PTB) will destroy Obama, not the fact if he makes it or not because it wouldn't make any difference. Obama is nothing more that a shinier side to same coin.

My take is that Obama is being set-up to take a fall, be it from scandals uncovered, another "false-flag" attack, or whatever, the point is to further undermine the masses participation is the election process. If hew were to be assassinated, or have election stolen this would pretty much do the trick. Add in food riots, collapse of economy and we'd be ripe for Martial Law to be declared.

Of course all if this could very well happen even if Obama becomes POTUS. I have absolutely zero faith that Obama will "change" anything for the better. He's just a slicker version of the same-old-same-old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The only worry ... Posted by: edgar1
ATTENTION PAUL KRUGMAN: The Democrats were INEFFECTUAL even in Roosevelt's time !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 9, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason Democrats are less credible is that even back in Roosevelt’s time, the “conservative” wing of the Democratic Party undermined liberalism to prevent it from getting much of a say in America. Remember Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc ...? Yes, they were always corporate Democrats and never supported unions or diversity.

Over time, people were frustrated and beginning in the late 1960s or one could say 1980, more people thought “Well? We might as well be stuck with raw deal cons because we’ve had it with those “liberals” for not living up to their promises but instead letting the social/economic “conservatives” control the Democratic Party.” We need to elect REAL progressives and liberals who really are what they claim regardless of party. The two party duopoly is what’s killing America.

The Democrats were the ones who also joined the GOP in overtaxing Cannabis and then in 1970, allowed Nixon to create the taxpayer money choking DEA to keep it illegal despite its true benefits. The Democratic Party is way too dysfunctional to even get its own identity straight much less grow a backbone and fight back. At no time these past few decades did the liberals ever infiltrate the GOP although there were some civil libertarian minded Republicans even in the 1970s. The Obama hacks are just plain desperate to simply have Democrats in power and want us to forget that the party has been nothing but a kissup to the GOP and is working harder than ever to out GOP the GOP. The Democrats should vote for the people’s interests and not for the corporate interests. If they would ever try that, the party hacks wouldn’t have to beg people to simply vote Democrat because the Democrats would have been more appealing to the voters naturally than is the case. Sorry Obama hacks but like Gore and Kerry, people are sick and tired of being begged upon to accept artificial BULLSHIT. Either force your Democratic Party to come clean and quit letting the conservatives in the party have their say or just let the party die as we’re already stuck with a one party system that just so happens to have 2 names, Democrat and Republican !!

RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT !!!!

VOTENADER.ORG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been a registered Republican since 1956. In 1988, I switched sides, voted for...
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 9, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gov. Dukakis and never went back. Why? Because I disliked the Bush family intensely.

I also didn't think a coward (Big George) who bailed out on his Navy flight crew during WWII and let them die in a pilotless plane crash at sea, then lied about it for political gain should be commander-in-chief.

So why am I still a registered Repub?

Three reasons:

1. My home state, California, has a closed primary system, meaning independents (my true political orientation) can't participate.

2. Every four years I get to vote TWICE against Republican presidential candidates. In the 2004 CAL primary, I wrote in "Mickey Mouse" on my GOP ballot because Big Ears was more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Bush 41's perfectly cloned first son -- another coward!

3. I get all RNC emails which makes great cannon fodder for an investigative journalist.

However, I do have a confession to make.

This year in the CAL primary, I voted for Unfit McCain. Later, in May, I learned error of my ways when I began investigating Songbird McCain's "heroic" POW record. Ever since, to make up for my foolishness, I have been busting my butt writing FACTUAL anti-McCain comments on AlterNet.

With love,

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet & ex-USAF pilot [For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors]
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

PS: In the first week of August, my Unfit McCain Web site had 312,900 hits. Thanks for the support, fellow AlterNetters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nonetheless ... Posted by: TheLimit
» Hugh... Posted by: edgar1
» Which "Party" to attend! Posted by: LionHeart
Ignore Krugman
Posted by: CalKid on Aug 9, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Professor is a left-wing neocon (yes there is such a thing) economist who advised Enron on their policies and cost thousands to lose their retirement money.

He has supported the war in Iraq.

His economic theories have been proven wrong by history.

Why does anyone care what he says?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Left-Wing Neocon Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Ignore Krugman Posted by: Quannah
My suggestion to Obama, play the game.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Aug 9, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans have set the rules of play for this election. Play dirty and tell people what they want to hear, not what is right.

Mr. Obama can do good but only if he is elected to the presidency. Bush stole two elections, probably by as-yet undisclosed criminal means. A few white lies by Obama to win would be be justified if he does the right things while in office. We know the Republicans won't do the right things, at least not as far as the average American is concerned. They almost never do.

So Mr. Obama...tell us you want to drill and how much it will reduce gas prices. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know two things.

1) It won't help.
2) It could get you elected.

Tell us you want to reduce taxes. Without details, that would be true as long as you don't mention letting those with more cash help take the load off those of us with little cast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When it comes to economics, don't be fooled by Krugman
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 9, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extracted from Wikipedia:

In the 1990s, Krugman was critical of industrial policy (an approach Clinton later dropped under the influence of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers) and argued in favor of free trade. (He wrote in his book The Great Unraveling, that "I still have the angry letter Ralph Nader sent me when I criticized his attacks on globalization.")

Also, in 1999, Krugman served as a consultant to Enron and was paid $37,500.

Krugman has almost never come out against government interventions, even ones that some expert economists say are bad for poor people.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Krugman came under criticism from liberal bloggers after he offered repeated criticism of Democratic candidate Barack Obama and his supporters.

The Huffington Post and several other progressive blogs particularly criticized one of Krugman's columns in which he characterized Obama supporters as 'cult-like', complained that the media had not given Obama sufficient scrutiny, and claimed that a special set of 'Clinton Rules' applied to the Clintons and not to others like Obama.

The protesting bloggers alleged close ties between Krugman and the Clintons, and wrote that his commentary was lopsided in this regard against Barack Obama.

Simply put, Krugman is a stealth neocon in the style of global greed queen and rabid Clinton lover, Madeline Albright -- a PNAC signatory.

With love,

*Hugh E. Scott, 73, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican and ardent Obama supporter.
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

*For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors to give context to this comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the price of oil is going to drop anyway
Posted by: mdwoade on Aug 9, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the middle of July, I told my daughter that the price of oil with be less than $100 by September 1. I might be wrong, but we have already seen a drop of half the amount needed. I figure that commodiities speculators work on a huge amount of leverage, and there will be a tipping point where they will need to come up with cash to cover their positions. I would guess one day the price of oil will plummet on one day this month.
The point is that somebody is going to take credit for this. The "drill" people are going to say it was their talking, the "demand" people are going to credit the American driving public, but I think credit goes to the fact that oil is way overpriced at anything over about $70 a barrel. So, watch and see as everyone says "I told you so" when the price drops because...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE CAUSES FOR A DROP IN THE FUTURES PRICE OF OIL IS GOING TO BE EXPLAINED
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Aug 9, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in so many different ways that unanimity will be impossible. It will drop if for no other reason that the economy will grind to a halt if it doesn't. Like the fall of the Roman Empire each viewer will have a different explanation.

Having said this our domestic oil prices are fueled by world oil prices. The world market is outside the purview of the U.S. government. It could be and may be manipulated by futures markets outside the United States. I might leave who might be doing that up to your own imaginations. Your imagination is as good as mine on that point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DON'T FOOL YOURSELF. KRUGMAN IS A GOOD ADJUNCT TO YOUR
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Aug 9, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
own thinking. Our purpose is to make each other think. We borrow, we reject, we polish, and eventually our ideas improve. We do take some of this process on faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: