Philosoraptor on O’Reilly and Krugman
Winston Smith at Philosoraptor is upset at seeing Bill O’Reilly run roughshod over Paul Krugman on a Tim Russert talkshow: OReilly punks Krugman.
This sounds like one of those “debates” that the creationist crowd occasionally sets up with some university professor on the subject of evolution. Typically, the creationist position is represented by an experienced, practiced participant in such fora, while the natural-selection position is represented by Joe Random PhD, unused to debating. The result is predictable.
Entertainment and honest inquiry aren’t the same thing, just as politics and science aren’t the same thing. You can dress up the one as if it were the other, but that doesn’t change its essential nature. In putting on a program that is news mixed together with entertainment, you have to decide which master to serve. There may have been a time when TV news served the master of journalistic ethics in preference to the master of ratings-driven entertainment, but if so that time has come and gone. Letting a professional blowhard like Bill O’Reilly bully a timid economics professor in the name of determining the truth about their respective political views demonstrates that pretty neatly.
August 8th, 2004 at 11:45 am
Actually, as far as O’Reilly goes, I could take him or leave him. He makes some good points on issues sometimes, but he is also a little shrill and too self-promoting at times, and he gives the Bush Administration some passes in his “no spin zone” that you can’t imagine he would do for a Democratic president. That being said, Krugman is no inconsequential, harmless little egghead. At least not in terms of the blastings and deliberate distortions and lies he tells in his columns. He has been called out numerous times by fellow journalists for factual inaccuracies and distorting of information to support his anti-Bush mindset.
So if he suffers from the “Wizard of Oz” syndrome (a bellowing beast from behind the curtain, or computer, while being a stumbling geek in debate), I have no sympathy for him.
August 8th, 2004 at 12:03 pm
I can’t recall Krugman lying. I haven’t read all his columns, but I’ve probably read most of them, and I tend to perk up when his name gets mentioned, so I’m surprised to hear you describe him like this.
Can you refer me to any of these callings-out by fellow journalists for his factual inaccuracies and distorting of information?
August 8th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
Krugman didn’t do well in the Fox News sense – he was fidgety and shifty-eyed and somewhat wimpy. But O’Reilly was just insane – yelling, pointing, one loud stupid assertion after another. (My favorite was his comparison of Media Matters to the KKK.) I thought it was like an “O’Reilly’s Greatest Hits” video; all the worst he can be.
If this is what people want – and clearly, it is – then they’ve got it. All that matters is strength. He who yells loudest and pounds his chest hardest wins. Just another example of how I don’t feel comfortable in this culture any more.
August 8th, 2004 at 9:39 pm
I’m too tired (and lazy) to link all the specific critical articles, but the primary blog that regularly fisks Krugman is Donald Luskin’s “Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid”. Others are Pejmanesque, Power Line, Man without Qualities”, Andrew Sullivan, NRO, and EconoPundit.
August 9th, 2004 at 6:37 am
Come on Craig just one little example. Don’t let these lefties wear you down. Show some intestinal fortitude. If Krugman is telling “deliberate distortions and lies’ in his column this is one place to let it be known. It’s you duty as a right thinking American to bring the truth to light. So again I ask, no beg, of you just one well researched thread of information linking Krugman’s lies to the contrary facts.
August 9th, 2004 at 7:09 am
After taking a look at his site, I don’t think Donald Luskin meets my personal standard of credibility on this question. I note that the very first example I saw on his site of Krugman’s “dishonesty” (in which Luskin was supporting O’Reilly’s charge that Krugman had wrongly predicted that Bush’s tax cuts would lead to a deepening of the recession, while Krugman had responded that no, he’d predicted that they would undercut job creation), actually seemed to me to support, rather than undercut, Krugman. (That is, the passage from an earlier Krugman column that Luskin offered in support of O’Reilly’s statement actually seemed to me to be more consistent with Krugman’s version of what he’d said than with O’Reilly’s.)
I think it would be a huge stretch to portray Luskin as one of Krugman’s “fellow journalists.” I was hoping more for someone who displays at least a little journalistic objectivity. Of the other folks you mention, the only ones I’m familiar with are Andrew Sullivan and NRO, and neither of them inspires much confidence in me on that score, either.
The fact that people who are part of the right-wing propaganda machine are willing to criticize Krugman and call him a “liar” doesn’t actually say much of anything, to me at least, about whether or not Krugman actually is one. The right-wing media would call him that regardless, simply because Krugman has criticized George Bush, and attacking such critics as evil liars is simply what the right-wing media does in such cases, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the attackee’s criticisms.
I can certainly sympathize with a feeling of sloth when someone asks you to justify something you’ve already concluded to be true; why bother plowing the same ground over again? But I hope you’ll understand that your unwilllingness to cite any journalists (other than blatantly partisan types) criticizing Krugman’s honesty leaves me disinclined to change my views on him.
August 9th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
krugemen is lying fucking liderial that should be tried for treason and hung that little was shitting his pants and could nt look oriely in the eyes.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Wow, Anonymous, classy. Hard not to agree with your articulate and well crafted case. Yeah, I like O’reilly too, he talks loud and that’s kewl, cause it meens hes smar t.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:28 pm
I’ll be glad to find a few specific links a little later from these sites, but come on John, you’re not really going to limit the sources of legitimate critics of Krugman to “non-partisan” sites, are you? Quite a few of the sites and sources you link to yourself are not exactly indifferent to Bush and Conservative thought. You seem to find them to be of valid and reasonable opinion (as some likely are). So it’s hardly even-handed to make a general assessment that authors and webblogs of a Conservative bent can’t be used as reasonable opinion, let alone for factual content.
And the articles I will link to don’t simply call Krugman a liar, but do actually present facts to bolster their case.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:40 pm
The popularity of these ignorant lying, thugs like O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc is very disturbing – I consider myself to be very open-minded and appreciate facts and the truth and sorry to say these right wingers are constantly twisting the truth and making outright false statements – this is borne out in EVERY unbiased news monitoring organization. If someone is still going to vote for Bush-Cheney at this point after seeing Bush in action at one of his ‘press conferences’ and with all the books and credible evidence indicating they have lied to us for the past 4 years there can be no real discussion or debate – you could show these people film footage of ‘w’ and ‘dick’ killing babies and robbing banks and they would still vote for these guys.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:52 pm
Both Krugman and O’Reilly were spazzy. Krugman shifty-eyed with a nervous laugh and hyperdefensiveness. O’Reilly loud and boorish. There were shreds of good points with each, but they were lost in a frenzied presentation.
August 9th, 2004 at 9:58 pm
Krugman had done his homework and had facts, O’Reilly was a loudmouth intimidator – Krugman was definitely physically on the defensive – judging by our new standards of right and wrong I think most numbskulls will say O’Reilly ‘kicked ass’ and won the ‘debate’
August 9th, 2004 at 10:03 pm
I disagree with what some have said describing Krugman as
“wimpy” etc. First off, i don’t think he takes O’reilly as a serious debater. Just an attack dog. So there is little discussion to be had. Second, he did not make much eye contact because he was focusing on his thoughts/ideas which was mostly what he had to bring there. The whole game plan of o’reilly was too intimidate him so he would lose his focus. That is why he wasn’t looking at o’reilly – he’s smart trying to zone out these tactics. If anyone else were yelling like o’reilly they would seem out of line but of course we just accept when that guy does it b/c that is how america has been conditioned – favorite part: o’reilly calling him a quasi-socialist and krugman saying then your a quasi-murderer haha
August 9th, 2004 at 10:21 pm
I just caught Bill O’Reilly replaying pieces of the CNBC debate with Krugman. I respect Paul Krugman, but he practically wilted off the set in the face of O’Reilly’s patented loud-mouth spin-as-no-spin bullying.
I figured O’Reilly’s staff simply pieced together the most Krugman-embarrassing segments for Bill’s show, but it sounds like Paul tanked in the original as well. It goes to show, some people best present their arguments on paper…and some people never get beyond 8th grade playground behavior.
August 9th, 2004 at 11:56 pm
Krugman 8/30/02 NYT on the Bush tax cuts: “these measures will be ineffective as stimulus, and will further worsen the budget outlook” — what else did he need to say to mean that the tax cuts would further hurt the economy?
Krugman 3/9/04 NYT on a chart showing the ‘optimistic’ projected job growth in the Economic Report of the President: “wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented… What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis.” But of course, much of this year’s projected job growth has in fact materialized and the chart largely shows projections similar to the job growth experienced in the 90’s – point being, if he wants me to trust him as an economic analyst he shouldn’t write so clearly as a partisan.
Why people “perk up” when his name gets mentioned is beyond me. I’ve always found him a partisan whose column is more focused on diatribes against conservatives than actually useful discussions – a pity given his supposed education and background.
August 10th, 2004 at 12:23 am
Hey,c’mon folks,krugman won this debate by just sitting back and letting o’reilly rant,rave,bluster and essentially show himself for the arrogant,bullying PROPAGANDIST that he is,who never let a fact get in the way of his agenda.
August 10th, 2004 at 2:19 am
You want to know a lie Krugman told? I’ll show you one right now. Krugman wrote in his April 22, 2003, New York Times column that,
“Aside from their cruelty and their adverse effect on the quality of life, these cuts will be a major drag on the national economy. … it’s clear that the administration’s tax-cut obsession isn’t just busting the budget; it’s also indirectly destroying jobs by preventing any rational response to a weak economy.”
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/042203.html < --look it up if you don't believe me. In the debate with O'Reilly he denied that he ever said the tax cuts will hurt the economy. "O’Reilly: Column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, okay, that these cuts, these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy. Krugman: Nope ... O'Reilly: They haven’t been. Krugman: Uh, uh, I’m sorry. That’s a lie. Let me just say, that’s a lie. O’Reilly: It’s not a lie. Krugman: It’s a lie." http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_08_08_chronArchive.asp#109206746155113133 <--there is the full transcript. Plenty more lies where that came from. Just try to catch O'Reilly in one lie.
August 10th, 2004 at 4:44 am
Kenny that was a prediction not an after the fact lie. It also happens to be a prediction that was and remains shared by most economists. Even the venerable old Allan Greenspan did not outwardly approve of tax cut as a means of disposing of “surplus”. As to him being wrong, IMHO the juries out.
Anyway respect your comment but you should tighten up on our definition of what a lie is.
August 10th, 2004 at 4:53 am
Has anyone considered the reason Krugman “wilted” during the debate is because he IS a “Spin-Master” and knows that very, very little of his diatribe can stand aginst any scrutiny…
And for those crying about “the right-wing liars” and listing each and everyone of them, (Rush, Hannity, etc,, etc…) it appears you haven’t a problem with “lies” but with right-wingers or you would of listed the Moors,George Soros’s, Ted Kennedy’s and Robert Byrds….
August 10th, 2004 at 6:02 am
I first read the transcript before I saw the interview excerpts on Fox news. By reading the transcript I really thought Krugman had a better argument and was better served with facts. But after seeing the debate on TV I was really sorry for the guy – he was visually trembling and shaking, you couldn’t hear much of what he was saying. I think O’Reilly was way over the top, yelling and pointing his finger. It seems he was really angry when Krugman called him a liar.
I agree that Krugman is often wrong in his column, but he’s an economist and that is their nature. But he is more solid than O’Reilly and clearly less vigorous.
August 10th, 2004 at 6:19 am
Just passing through I paused to read a thread or two and noted wearily that conservatives at all levels rely on the same debating technique: repeat the same baseless assertion of fact over and over and hope that people will eventually overlook your lack of proof. Not one of your respondents cited criticism of Paul Krugman by a professional economist. Most evidently believe that references to other blogs will suffice, as long as they’re embedded in sufficiently strident ad hominem attacks. Ludicrous!
August 10th, 2004 at 7:19 am
Hey Kenny, anonymous,
Look! Job report came out and only 32,000 jobs were created in July. And the spending is off the charts. Looks like Krugman’s been right after all, and all along.
How can you guys compare analysis to intentional lies? And how can you slander with a straight face when even the analysis is correct?
Bad economy, bad war, bad leadership, bad accountability, bad international relationships, etc .. etc .. “No problem! Just shout it down!”
Is there any limit to right-wing bald-face, bullying lies?
August 10th, 2004 at 7:20 am
you have to laugh at o’reilly, I was just surprised he didn’t call Krugman unpatriotic, as any good republican does when people have different views. people who raise their voice, swing their fists and talk b/s get more attention these days than people who are actually making sense, frankly thats a bit scary.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:18 am
I enjoyed that debate to no end. I agree that Krugman was shifty eyed and quaking and that O’Reilly pointed his finger and screamed personal insults. I hope the Presidential debates are that entertaining. IMHO Krugman won easily on points. O’Reilly frequently avoided the issue to focus on things like media matters. I don’t know about media matters and I don’t care. O’Reilly was either quoted correctly or not. It doesn’t matter who records the quote. Since O’Reilly never claimed to have been misquoted, the whole media matters thing was a dodge.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:32 am
you’ve got to be kidding. O’Reilly doesn’t even know the definition of a recession. It’s not negative GNP as he describes it, it is simply two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Have we had that? Yeah, pretty much the whole time Bush has been in office. Krugman has been right almost every time. O’Reilly makes up sources for Christ’s sake! Paris Business Review ring a bell? If someone takes the time to point out that trickle down economics can’t possibly work in an open global marketplace using some foreign concept called “math” the only response a wrinkled old dinosaur like O’Reilly can come up with is to yell…like he always does.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:46 am
Some of the points people have made about calling Krugman a liar in regards to economic forecasting are correct – just because someone makes a partisan forecast (that’s why people get mad I think – his forecasts are based on partisanship, not solid economic statistics) does not make him a liar.
What does make him a liar (or just blindly partisan to the point of no return) is when he praises Michael Moore’s piece of journalistic propagandist trash. How could any respectable journalist praise that film – Outright propaganda of that nature is not helpful to the American way. Michael Moore is a proven Liar (that is not debatable), so when he tries to support Moore’s piece Krugman loses all credibility.
August 10th, 2004 at 9:00 am
Criticism of Paul Krugman by a (definitely) non-right-winger:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4882
August 10th, 2004 at 9:49 am
Wow… talk about echo room. Except for Sara, I’ve seen little real attempt at proof that Krugman “lies”. And the critique Sara links to doesn’t make the assertion that Krugman lies; it says a) he’s far more conservative than he lets on (or at least as his opponents paint him — he came here to Ann Arbor, and prefaced his talk by saying he was in many ways a pro-globalization traditional economist, just with some important disagreements on how to do things); the Prospect article calls him the conservative’s dream liberal. B) It says/implies he has become an ideologue, and his analyses lack depth — a far cry from a liar! The article cites what it considers antiquated economics that Krugman uses.
Which is to say, there are many pertinent stylistic and academic problems to be had with Krugman, insofar as the Prospect article; this has nothing to do with lying, imho. I would certainly concede he’s likely fallen into the hyperbole *all* journalists are guilty of, making anectdotes out to be proof; using exceptions to disprove others; jumping to conclusions; insufficient humility in their own conclusions. Which is to say, in his column, he’s a columnist, and less an ideal academic. Not that he should get a pass — he, and all other journalists, need to start living up to a much higher standard.
As for Moore’s movie, it’s funny to me that a bunch of clips of things that actually happened can be called propagandist screed. In the US, we have this weird view that if your point of view is obvious, your argument must be incorrect. Journalists in other countries often find it far more useful to say “this is our position, based on x, y, and z facts” allowing you to know exactly what bias you may see, by letting you know the true perspective it’s written from. Objectivity is a red herring, as psychology shows that people who disagree with you almost never view you as objective, and those that agree are more likely to view you as objective. I’ve heard Moore has been caught in lies, but as far as F 9/11, I have yet to see a substantive lie — a distinctive perspective, yes, arranging facts to fit a certain interpretation, but none of these are lies, and whether they’re distortions depends on your point of view.
Differences of opinion, whether Krugman or Moore, are not the same as lies. If someone wants to prove either one, get far enough off your duffs to do the following: outline a claim they have made; outline the real life fact that this contradicts; AND show your sources for both. Insisting everyone draw their own conclusions from various articles and blogs won’t cut it. (And please, sources don’t have to be “non-partisan”, but blogs aren’t subject to any review, editorial or peer, so not so convincing, sorry.)
August 10th, 2004 at 10:08 am
Ah, the venom. The toxic stench wafting from the majority of the posts submitted thus far on the subject of the “textological inexactitudes” produced from both ends of the political spectrum, as represented by Messrs. O’Reilly and Krugman, is at once both enlightening and disheartening, but not in the least surprising.
No concept or principle of human thought and belief has endured greater assault and deconstruction in recent times than that of truth, and just what “truth” is, if it indeed exists at all. Much, if not most of what passes, or attempts to pass as thoughtful, considered debate, undertaken in attempt at ascertaining and promoting the truth, is in reality, nothing more than the continuing struggle between parties interested in little, if anything more than simply “winning” — winning the argument, winning the election, winning in court. Whatever the venue, and whatever it takes, winning is indeed the only thing that matters. Who knows? Maybe Darwin really knew what he was talking about. It’s survival of the fittest, and let the truth be damned.
August 10th, 2004 at 10:40 am
Having listened to O’Reilly numerous times, I knew before the debate that O’Reilly would resort to screaming and name calling if he saw he was not winning. I also knew that Professor Krugman would eat him alive if the discussion got into economics and tax cuts. You can’t win a debate by finger pointing and screaming. Krugman was great.
I have watched Krugman in discussions and debates for many years. His eyes have always wandered when he’s speaking. Even past interviewers have mentioned that he appears nervous when being interviewed. The wandering eyes and shaking had nothing to do with O’Reilly’s outbursts
August 10th, 2004 at 10:59 am
Since when did this discussion exist solely to “prove” that Krugman lies? But since so many seem unable to connect the dots, here it is:
Mr. O’REILLY: …column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.
Prof. KRUGMAN: No.
Mr. O’REILLY: They haven’t been.
Prof. KRUGMAN: I’m sorry, that’s a lie.
But of course what O’Reilly said is accurate, as I showed above.
As I stated previously, the point is not that he has been caught in a lie (I agree it’s rather pedantic), but that he deliberately and consistently misconstrues information to fit his agenda. He is more of a spin doctor than a scholar, and apart from a few well written pieces, his column is an overall waste.
August 10th, 2004 at 11:09 am
Quite an interesting string. A little of everything, but mostly a resounding endorsement of the shrill nature of our political times. I am left feeling that personal objectivity and the search for truth have been left permanently mangled on the side of the road in favor of political revenge. Revenge against Reagan showing the left that excessive taxation to fund bloated social welfare programs was eroding our collective strength as a nation. Revenge against Clinton for dashing the dreams of millions of heady Gingrichites for achieving a century of neoconservative dynasty on the rocks of a new centrist direction for our country. Revenge against conservatives for electing (?) a less-than-sharp nepotist who ran on the platform of centrism and delivered a looping hard right sucker punch once taking office. When/if John Kerry wins in November, which seems highly likely, his challenge will be to resist the temptation to deliver a looping hard-left and try to stake out some middle ground. Historically speaking, Democrats have been better able to deliver on this, having learned from, and actually admitted to, having lost their way in the past, so I am hopeful. If he can pull this off (GW certainly has shown nothing but disdain for centrist poditions, so i can expect a change of course there in the event of an upset victory for him), it may start to bringing the big ship of political grenade launching around. But listening to O’Reilly and the never ending sound bite loops coming from the fire breathing right gives me little hope…much to the disservice of our country. The truth and answers to our country’s needs are somewhere in the middle…but Satan is currently living it upon at the extremes. Alas…….
August 10th, 2004 at 11:13 am
should have said…”If he can pull this off (GW certainly has shown nothing but disdain for centrist poditions, so i can NOT expect a change of course there in the event of an upset victory for him), it may start to bringing the big ship of political grenade launching around. My apologies!
August 10th, 2004 at 11:13 am
should have said…”If he can pull this off (GW certainly has shown nothing but disdain for centrist poditions, so i can NOT expect a change of course there in the event of an upset victory for him), it may start to bringing the big ship of political grenade launching around. My apologies!
August 10th, 2004 at 11:18 am
in response to J about asking for sources on lies from Michael Moore.
When you completely distort or misrepresent facts or blantatly omit context you can call it what ever you want, but in reality its a lie. Point of view is subjective, and its good to look at point of views which usually spark a nice “healthy debate”. When something is an outright lie it is not a “point of view”. I can show footage of Hitler bouncing a baby on his knee and tell you that he was a nice man because thats my point of view – but any intelligent person that doesn’t play the symantic game will know that statement is a lie.
For the people that want hard facts – here is a link to an article that catches Michael in a lie – hes actually being sued for 1$ on matter of principle.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590756
August 10th, 2004 at 11:29 am
The previous comments do not address any of the indisputed facts that Michael Moore has brought to the fore. My guess is that, to Brian, since Mr. Moore has “lied” on one occasion, he has lied about EVERYTHING! It would be nice to see a conservative address at least one of those indisputed truths. It would lend more credence to his argument.
August 10th, 2004 at 11:42 am
A portion of the debate on Sunday turned to weapons inspectors and the need (or lack thereof) for immediate preemptive action. O’Reilly pointed to an interview he claims to have had with Hans Blix before the war in which Blix said he never had access to the Iraqi scientists and that they had no way of knowing if Saddam had weapons because they couldn’t find cooperation…This pretty much shut Krugman up. A little amateur research can find the transcript of O’Reilly’s one and only interview with Blix one year AFTER the war started (March, 2004). A big part of that interview is Bill trying to corner Blix into saying he had no access to scientists. Blix said he did have access to scientists and that every interview conducted with these scientists confirmed the place and time where and when the weapons had been destroyed. O’Reilly asked, “IRAQI scientists?” Blix: “Yes. Iraqi scientists.”
hmm…that’s funny. Did Bill O’Reilly LIE? (again)
I paraphrased a lot of this, but it’s accurate. I’m just lazy.
Kenney is right. Regardless of your ideology you have to admit that ALL ideologies are flawed. Therefore, you’re probably wrong sometimes. Even an extremist like Wellstone had some good ideas. Rather than ideology we should debate policy.
August 10th, 2004 at 11:44 am
Amen brother Briles, amen.
To quote ‘J’ above: “…if your point of view is obvious, your argument must be incorrect.” He also said “…More has been caught in lies…”
That, ‘J,’ is how snipets of things that actually happened (or, in this case, were written) can be turned into lies (or propaganda, however you want to call it).
Want some specific instances of the lies in Moore’s latest film? Go to http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 and read Christopher Hitchens’ article. Please try to get all the way through it before giving up since it’s from an obviously biased source.
Here’s another good piece: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm. It’s by Dave Kopel, and from here you can get some other examples.
A lie, according to Webster, includes creating ‘a false or misleading impression.’ Michal Moore is guilty of this, as are all of his liberal and conservative propaganda buddies. That’s more than spin, which is the standard for just about any media coverage in the world, no matter which country. That’s LYING.
You, ‘J,’ and other people like you, scare the heck out of me. You let other people think for you.
August 10th, 2004 at 12:06 pm
No Luke. We should skip ideologies and policies and re-discover our core VALUES, the values this country was founded on.
I feel we have strayed way, way too far from them especially since the end of WWII when we became a so-called “super-power”.
Domestically, we are ignorant, intolerant, partisan, shallow and comfort seeking, as evidenced by our popular culture, our journalism and our “statemen”.
Internationally, we are profiteers, bullies, and friends to just about every anti-democratic regime.
We are now what our founders ran away from.
No wonder our best friends are Spain & England, and our enemy is France!
August 10th, 2004 at 12:12 pm
Journalism in America is almost dead.
Thank God for Democracy Now.
August 10th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
That’s true, Denning, but “values” are hardly debatable. They are vague and universal. I value my family, do you? Oh good, then we agree. Let’s bomb Afghanistan, they don’t have families there.
(Just exaggerating to make a point)
August 10th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
It’s is truly sad to watch conservative’s desperate, flailing attempts to continue to justify and champion such a worthless figure as Bill O’Reilly. His debate with Krugman on Tim Russert’s show was a clear example of the impossibility of defending the low-browed, fact-less rhetoric and constant spin of the “No Spin Zone’s” leading man. Where Krugman tried to have a level headed discussion of issues, O’Reilly made every point for him by constantly erupting into tantrums the equivalent to a two year old not getting his way. But I guess that the only defense one has when another calls you out on your own words, which he is then able to put in a very clear context, is to scream and yell about being a commie-loving friend of Fidel’s, or to constantly talk over your opponent until it’s time for commercial break. That might work for high-school drop-outs and Fox News watchers, but anyone who was watching in order to critically analyze the positions of both speakers was surely not impressed with Mr. O’Reilly’s constant regression to insults and ridiculous claims totally unrelated to the issues being discussed. I know that it is not as embarrassing to come to the defense of such an idiot when you can do so in the relative anonymity of the internet, but at some point you are going to have to ask yourself, “Can I continue to take this guy’s side, and look myself in the mirror in the morning. If you actually feel that you can discuss Bill O’Reilly’s issue stances in an intellectual manner (unlike he does) than feel free to reply, I don’t expect to hear from you anytime soon.
August 10th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
Yes O’Reilly won the debate, unless you want to consider the actual substance of the debate or the honesty of the participants. Here’s a perfect example of the way O’Reilly works: Krugman made a point about the inspectors being in Iraq and doing their job right before the war and O’Reilly actually MADE UP AN INTERVIEW with Hans Blix AND THE CONTENT OF THAT INTERVIEW to support his point. This is what he does all the time. On his show, someone questioned his assertions about the impact his “boycott” had on the French economy, and HE MADE UP A PUBLICATION (THE “PARIS BUSINESS REVIEW”) to support his point. It’s hard to win a debate with a jackass blowhard who will make things up to support his point.
August 10th, 2004 at 1:56 pm
I think that Krugman thought that O’Reily might actually get physical at points along the way. I thought so too! It was suprising to me that Russert allowed that pitbull to run the show. O’Reily appeals to those that don’t like to get bogged down in complexity; if you don’t agree with someone – just kick ass. Nonetheless, I really don’t know why Krugman would even agree to appear with a guy like this. Aren’t there better forums to discuss the real issues? Probably, but this is where the book promotion business skews logic.
August 10th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Krugman had nothing to gain by appearing with O’reily. Time & time again, thinkers make the mistake of debating idiots.
O’reily, and his fans, are not interested in facts. That’s not how their schtik works.
August 10th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
I watched the interview twice and both times was struck with how O’Reilly tried to physically intimidate Krugman. O’Reilly didn’t engage in a debate, he simply went off on tirades on any point Krugman tried to make. Example: Calling MediaMatters.org equivalent to the KKK. It’s hard to engage in a debate on the merits of either side when your opponent equates a partisan website with an organization that actively engaged in racial hatred and helped lynch thousands of innocent blacks. Of cource Bill is proud of his performance and replying it on his show. And Tim Russert did nothing to steer the debate to higher ground.
August 10th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
That was nothing, Jon. How about when he said “hezbollah thinks like you too”!
Read the dailyhowler’s account on this:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh081004.shtml
Here’s his conclusion:
THE MORAL OF THE STORY: Tail-Gunner Joes are always with us; their instincts are hard-wired in the human gene pool. Once, our culture kept them on the fringes. Now, they’re thrown onto cable TV, where they’re encouraged to clown, spin, name-call, jab and rant. Endlessly, they fool the rubes, misleading them, spinning them, abusing their decency. These people will always prey on democracy—if they’re given a spot center stage.
August 10th, 2004 at 4:01 pm
Justin,
All I know from what you just wrote is that OReilly screamed at Krugman on the Russert Show.
I want to see this interview and get the facts for myself, but must depend on YOU for the facts, at lease until they show it again.
Got more? I hope so.
August 10th, 2004 at 6:19 pm
My opinion of Tim Russert went from neutral to the bottom of the barrel after that interview. He did nothing to steer the debate to some higher ground, and certainly never called O’Reilly on any of his gross distortion of the facts, much less his boorish behaviour. I wouldn’t watch it again if you paid me.
It was like watching an illiterate street punk beat up a nice old man…it sickened me. It is so depressing to see what low intellectual depths our conservative friends have stooped to these days.
I don’t fault O’Reilly. My common sense tells me he has always been a disturbed blow hard that plays fast and loose with the facts. It’s the people who watch and listen to him that depress me so.
There are so many intelligent and sensible conservatives out there…take David Brooks, or even Bill Kristol, for example…but they have no chance in a FoxNews-style conservative marketplace dominated by huge loud-mouthed morons like O’Reilly. You can agree or disagree with Krugman, Dowd, et al, but it’s hard to dislike their gentle demeanor and command of the facts.
Here is a litmus test to tell if you are a part of the biggest societal problem this country has faced since the Civil War….if you love Bill O’Reilly, you need to know that you are perpetuating an evil and scandalous mode of political discourse that is contributing to a shameful decline in the effectiveness and ability of the government to do it’s job.
Stay conservative, by all means! This country NEEDS passionate and thoughtful conservatives to contribute to our nation’s progress! What we don’t need is more O’Reilly-like conservatives that are more loyal to their ideologies and their party than they are to their country and all the wonderful diversity that it represents
August 10th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
Frankly, I can understand where O’Reilly was coming from when he lighted into Krugman, who is an unbearably arrogant and dogmatic hatchet man. It must have been incredibly cathartic — I can only howl to myself when reading Krugman’s partisan drivel in the Times. Today’s column on “Spinning the Jobs Picture” is a perfect example. Krugman has joined the Democratic chorus in contrasting the Bush years with the Clinton era to argue that Kerry would take us back to Clinton’s salad days of economic plenty. The sad fact of the matter is that Clinton’s economic policies were geared towards enriching his corporate paymasters, from NAFTA, to PNTR for China, to the toleration of massive corporate maleasance. The Clinton “boom” had more to do with economic bubbles (the .com and telecom bubbles come immediately to mind) than sound economic policy-making. We’re now left with a massive hang-over from those times. Clinton’s pro-import trade policy coupled with his strong dollar policy (a gift to Rubin’s Wall Street buddies) crushed the U.S. manufacturing sector under a deluge of imports. The trade deficit soared after 1998 and never looked back, with 500,000 jobs lost under Clinton’s watch, and another 2.5 million under Bush, who frantically attempted to bring Clinton’s strong dollar policy back down to earth without destabliizing the world economy. Krugman’s take on on this — read his column — is that the recession began under Bush, in March 2001. A “nobel caliber” economist claiming that a President in office for all of three months is somehow responsible for the recession? Give me a break. Moreover, Krugman was an outspoken supporter of Clinton’s destruction of the manufacturing sector, arguing through his column, essentially, that high paying manufacturing jobs should be replaced by big government welfare programs. Displaced manufacturing workers can find solice in food stamps and cheap imports from Walmart. So Krugman is a hypocrite as well, in claiming to champion the little guy. Remember Krugman’s $35,000 per year fee for “consulting” for Enron? How the ostensibly thoughtful liberals on this website can support Krugman, much less find him a bastion of truth and justice, escapes me. I find him a despicable scoundrel, who is smart enough to know that his arguments are intended to deceive.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:36 pm
Karl…Bravo!! Another wonderful example of the right taking ALL the credit for everything that was or is or ever will be good and right and blaming everything bad, painful, and evil on the left. Doesn’t that smack of being way too simplistic to be credible?
How do you expect any thinking person to take you seriously when you simply recite Fox news talking points, albeit glibly? Truly intelligent people are quite capable of teasing out the facts from the fiction, regardless of the topic vis a vis the political positions of the commentator.
Are you incapable of discernment? Have you always been so? If not, what other cause than indoctrination by years of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly could cause such a well spoken man to abandon the universal attributes of philosophical independence and common sense for the putrid fad of exhaustingly predictable recitation of propaganda?
If screaming inane and inappropriate insults at a quietly confident and prepared debator is cathartic for you, what does that really say about you? Think about it.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:53 pm
The problem is that guys like Krugman need to have the balls to stand up and scream about obvious logical fallacies when their opponents rely upon them. O’Reilly used the non-sequitur, red herring, argument-by-question, and poisoning-the-well arguments (especially regarding media matters) so often that is insulting to anyone who has ever even walked by a Philosophy 101 course.
Guys like Krugman need to stop the entire conversation by pointing out how RIDICULOUS their opponents’ arguments are, instead of this milquetoast “well, so are you” pussyfooting. Refuse to even consider moving forward in the debate until the opponent admits the fallacy. Guys like O’Reilly aren’t interested in the Socratic method, because they are not embarassed to maintain their absurd arguments in the face of reality.
As such, the tactics should change on the part of guys like Krugman. When O’Reilly says “I know you’re smarter than me,” Krugman should reply, “then why are you here?” He should not be afraid to say “calm down, little fella, I understand that you are tempted to resort to intimidation when you have no arguments to support you.” Televised political shows are not anywhere close to legitimate academic debates. If your opponent is not smart enough to understand when he has been humiliated, you must help him out.
Krugman defended Moore when he shouldn’t have, and should have placed himself on the side of legitimate criticism of this Administration instead of a vehement apologist of all things Left. When he did that, O’Reilly could claim victory, and use that CLAIM (not fact) to vindicate in his and every other half-witted conservative’s mind every economic policy Krugman (rightly) criticizes.
This played right into the GOP’s hands: Dems win arguments; Republicans win elections.
August 10th, 2004 at 8:58 pm
Karl offers:
“Remember Krugman’s $35,000 per year fee for “consulting” for Enron? How the ostensibly thoughtful liberals on this website can support Krugman, much less find him a bastion of truth and justice, escapes me”
You do understand that this was pre-fraud Enron, and that this was before Krugman was a regular columnist for the Times. When he became a regular columnist, he refused those items, before it was “cool” to do it, and before it became clear that they were engaging in the most sophisticated and egregious acts of fraud on American consumers in history.
Secondly, once one overcomes the temptations to believe the hacks whose trifling criticisms of Krugman’s columns, you can understand that people see him, perhapsn not a “bastion of truth and justice,” but rather someone who points out the serious threats that this Administration’s fiscal policies pose to the middle class. Maybe you were making a straw man, I don’t know, but this is the way many of us see Krugman.
August 10th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
I want to comment on the denigration of Michael Moore’s film as extreme and unreasonable. Also the supposed ‘lie’ concerning the disputed headline subject to the one dollar lawsuit.
Farenheit 9/11 is a work of art. Using bits of live video, etc, he communicated a whole viewpoint about the corruptness and incompetence of the Bush administration and of George himself. He was careful to accurate but the fact that he went overboard (as in the case of the overemphasized headline) or even was wrong somewhere, is not important.
The question that those who pick at the details want us to overlook is to ask ourselves if the image, teh impression, the picture Moore communicated make you think George Bush is corrupt and incompetent. If it does that, then it succeeded. It has never had any other reason for being made or viewed.
Whether you believe that the image is true should be based on the correspondence between this rich, interesting idea and your understanding of reality. I claim that, as a political hobbiest and person that reads everything that comes close enough to see, Michael Moore’s viewpoint matches my understanding of George Bush’s reality.
As Fahrentheit 9/11 illustrates, George Bush is corrupt and incompetent. Moore believes it. I believe it. You, take you choice. Don’t be calling people ‘liar’. It’s not polite.
August 11th, 2004 at 5:29 am
Kenny- Well said.
Karl- Just rants like that is what worries me about the state of conservatism. Seems like Democrats only exist to make Republicans look good: no sooner had the miracle of Reaganomics had worn off during Clinton’s first term, than did Bush 43’s troubles began during Clinton’s second term! If that’s so, then it’s clear that Republicans do much better when they’re out of office than when they’re in it, and I say let’s keep it that way!
And if any minute association with Enron is reason to stop supporting someone, according to your indignations (or logic), then how do you support the President who gave “Kenny boy” a desk in the White House??
August 11th, 2004 at 7:48 am
To: “All the Js”
Well done. Conflating an argument with a straw man always wins battles. “Let’s others do the thinking for them” indeed.
Cutting clips of what someone says, yes, can create misleading impressions. But you seem to think it guarantees misleading impressions. Give specific examples from Moore’s movie, how about here, with your analysis, instead of others’? It seems apparent to me that his interpretation of events is either rational or disagreeable considering what your prior information and disposition is. This isn’t lying or misleading — this is difference of opinion. Sorry, you don’t have a monopoly on truth, “All the Js.”
As for your links, one is broken, and Hitchens… please. Read any and all of the responses on Slate’s Fray to his column… he is a hysteric. If necessary, I can point out the flaws anew if you can’t read the Fray (since I accused people here of being too lazy to post stuff themselves).
August 11th, 2004 at 9:21 am
wow…i’m depressed.
August 11th, 2004 at 9:49 am
By the by, a critique of F 9/11 I agree with:
“Stupid White Movie: What Michael Moore Misses about the Empire” by Robert Jensen.
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
Highlights:
“The sad truth is that “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is a bad movie, but not for the reasons it is being attacked in the dominant culture. It’s at times a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies the film’s main political points is either dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.
But, most important, it’s a conservative movie that ends with an endorsement of one of the central lies of the United States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore.”
“First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily black voters in Florida in the 2000 election, a political scandal that the mainstream commercial news media in the United States has largely ignored. The footage of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus members can’t get a senator to sign their letter to allow floor debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful indictment not only of the Republicans who perpetrated the fraud but the Democratic leadership that refused to challenge it.
Moore also provides a sharp critique of U.S. military recruiting practices, with some amazing footage of recruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas for targets, whom are disproportionately non-white. The film also effectively takes apart the Bush administration’s use of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public to accept its war policies.”
These are damning parts of the movie — and I can’t see how “creative editing” could be any more damning than the fact that the US *does* concentrate on low-income citizens for recruitment (a fact they themselves admit from time to time) (also note that the No Child Left Behind Act allows the military default access to students’ personal information unless the parents signed an objection to this before a deadline some two years ago: ” Buried deep within the funding benefits is Section 9528 which grants the Pentagon access to directories with students names, addresses and phone numbers so that they may be more easily contacted and recruited for military service. Prior to this provision, one-third of the nation’s high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus because they believed it was inappropriate for educational institutions to promote military service.
This portion of the Department of Education’s initiative to create better readers, testers and homework-doers is a departure from the previously federally guaranteed privacy protections students have traditionally known. Until now, schools have been explicitly instructed to protect the integrity of students’ information — even to guard students’ private information from college recruiters. ” http://www.alternet.org/story/14716)
And the US Civil Rights Commission, headed by Marion Frances Berry, DID find the African Americans had been disenfranchised in the 2000 election, and no Senator, Dem or Rep, would respond to the cavalcade of Reps who brought forward a motion regarding this issue, as shown in F 9/11.
But back to Jensen:
“To ridicule the Bush propaganda on this issue, Moore uses these images and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says, in essence, “What kind of coalition is it that has these backward countries?” Moore might argue that is not his intention, but intention is not the only question; we all are responsible for how we tap into these kinds of stereotypes.”
“More subtle and important is Moore’s invocation of a racism in which solidarity between dominant whites and non-white groups domestically can be forged by demonizing the foreign “enemy,” which these days has an Arab and South Asian face. For example, in the segment about law-enforcement infiltration of peace groups, the camera pans the almost exclusively white faces (I noticed one Asian man in the scene) in the group Peace Fresno and asks how anyone could imagine these folks could be terrorists. There is no consideration of the fact that Arab and Muslim groups that are equally dedicated to peace have to endure routine harassment and constantly prove that they weren’t terrorists, precisely because they weren’t white.”
“”Fahrenheit 9/11″ is strong on tapping into emotions and raising questions about why the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, but it is extremely weak on answering those questions in even marginally coherent fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis, it appears to be that the wars were a product of the personal politics of a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty is corrupt, but the analysis the film offers is both internally inconsistent, extremely limited in historical understanding and, hence, misguided.
Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.
But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively on the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification of longstanding policies, affected by the confluence of this particular administration’s ideology and the opportunities created by the events of 9/11.”
F 9/11 certainly had a point of view, and certainly edited to emphasize this point of view. To say that they edited out of context, you must show how the truth is different than what was presented, not just claim that editing is inherently distorting. It may be, but no more so than any other attempt to get at “reality” by differing parties. And if the progressive Left feels Moore failed to prove his case, it is not because he lied but rather because he created a narrative that he feels is compelling, and which has a certain rationality, but may be incorrect.
You can say he’s wrong. But to say he’s lying is going to require a much higher burden of proof — it’s one thing to disagree with interpretation; it’s another to call those who do so liars.
August 11th, 2004 at 11:12 am
Michael Moore does more than “distort the thruth”…he outrights lies….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/?cb
“Under the Hot Lights” Moore’s movie will make waves. But it’s a fine line between fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’
August 11th, 2004 at 11:17 am
Aside from their cruelty and their adverse effect on the quality of life, these cuts will be a major drag on the national economy. … it’s clear that the administration’s tax-cut obsession isn’t just busting the budget; it’s also indirectly destroying jobs by preventing any rational response to a weak economy.
– Krugman
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/042203.html
And he still was trying to pretend that he never said that Bush’s tax cuts would lead to recession. Who is he kidding??
As for the other comments about failure of Bush’s fiscal policies. Has anyone here heard of 9/11??? Does it occur to anyone that it’s a miracle that this country isn’t in worse off shape??? Or did 9/11 never happen for you?
August 11th, 2004 at 11:23 am
a lot of big words, fellas. the film is just like all of moore’s work. it asks questions that no one else in the mainstream media is asking. it doesn’t give answers, because to do so would be beyond moore’s intellect and dedication to research. he leans you toward his point of view. so what. it’s better than living in a country with one point of view. you’re all smart, come up with your own answers. does the film talk down to the audience? yeah, but who can blame him. most people have no idea any of these questions exist. asking the questions is not a crime (or is it?). it’s not like the president is going to hold press conferences with reporters and cameras and all that crazy shit that makes him studder, right? there’s propaganda everywhere…all the time…
this fat guy’s movie isn’t even fractionally dangerous when compared to, say, john ashcroft.
michael moore doesn’t claim to be smart or 100% right. he only claims to be angry and confused and heartbroken and ready for change.
he’s an average person with a little talent. get over him, already.
August 11th, 2004 at 11:29 am
I missed the Russert show. Is there any place to replay it on the web?
August 11th, 2004 at 11:35 am
SUSAN
nice link! you mean to tell me that a carlysle group spokesperson categorically denies the allegations!
that’s freakin’ mindblowing!
even if bush wasn’t on the board at the time a lot of other cronies were.
you’ll have to do better than that.
wonder what makes the world go ’round?
August 11th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
George,
If 9/11 is the reason for fiscal difficulties, how come the rich didn’t share in the sacrifice?
Neither 9/11 nor 2 wars even slowed down the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Why are you looking for quotes from Krugman about the state of the economy? Why not stick your head out the window, or read the actual, factual reports on jobs, deficits, debt, and manufacturing?
August 11th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
9/11 can’t be the excuse for everything forever. civil rights? who needs ’em? objective journalists? they’re unpatriotic. accountability in the white house? what are you, communist? fiscal responsibility? hell no, we’re having a national emergency here…
the union has been on the verge of collapse since it was founded.
anyone who actually spent time reading and paying attention knew a successful terrorist attack was imminent.
it changed nothing but the state of mind in our country.
only a fool would believe that all of our economic problems are due to that one tragedy.
on another note:
“better to have a free press and no government, than a government and no free press.”
-Thomas Jefferson, i think
August 11th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
Let me start out by saying I am neither Dem. or Rep. and feel both parties are to blame. Both sides sell their soul to raise $$ to beat the other side, who then has to raise even more $$ to fight back. This ever increasing money raising game has caused both sides to represent their contributers instead of their voters. This leaves open minded Americans with few choices and little representation. This also drives poiticians into their respective corners (left and right) because there is little money in the middle. This makes for the devisive political culture we are now seeing. Not good for America. The O’Reilly-Krugman “debate” offered little in the way of debating issues and told alot about the current state of politics. Lots of name calling, and name association, and alot of not directly answering questions. Is it so hard to just answer the question. Neither Bush or Kerry is a straight shooter, in fact, they have gotten where they are by being good at “spin”. Clinton the same. Without a good honest impartial press to hold the pols accountable, the public is left to decipher between the spin of the right and the spin of the left. I hope its not too late before America realizes that both sides are lying to us. cRRusher
August 11th, 2004 at 2:40 pm
I haven’t seen one thing on this sight or anywhere else that show’s a Krugman lie. The quotes above from anonymous and the likes are hilarious in that they actually back Krugman and make his points stronger. The tax cuts have hurt the economy, for God’s sake look at the deficit. Tell me why the richest country in the world can’t pay it’s bills. Don’t tell me it’s 9/11, that was three years ago. We should be paying that off by now. The Bushies have been wrong everytime this trickle down crap has been tried. For 12 years under Bush1 and Reagan the deficit grew and grew. We never grew out of it like they promised we would. Clinton took over a record(at that time) 292 Billion dollar deficit in 1993, adopted a drastically different fiscal policy, and reduced the deficit in each of his tremendously successful eight years. Now Bush comes in in 2000 inheriting a 230 Billion SURPLUS, drastically changes policy back to the right wing way and what a surprise, four straight years of fiscal deterioration. It is flat out incredible that with the fact right there in front of us, we still have Republicans blaming Democrats for our nation’s debt.
August 11th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
O’Reilly would have come off much better if he had avoided the boorish bellicose demeanor. His claims were not unreasonable, consequently his distinctive behavior distracted us from what he said.
Krugman was less consistent than O’Reilly. He rolled his eyes upward as if he were not sure that he had a good response.
Incidentally, in the past week or so I’ve seed Maureen Dowd pushing her book on TV. It’s amazing, her excessive use of ” ya’know ” – – she speaks like an 18-year old kid at the mall(except for the absence of gum.) I’ve often wondered why her schtick was wise-ass caricature; now it’s making more sense.
August 11th, 2004 at 3:16 pm
George 25:
allow me to quote LukeG since you musta missed it the first time around..
“you’ve got to be kidding. O’Reilly doesn’t even know the definition of a recession. It’s not negative GNP as he describes it, it is simply two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Have we had that? Yeah, pretty much the whole time Bush has been in office. Krugman has been right almost every time. ”
Man, what would conservatives do without Rush and FoxNews? Where would they go to get their talking points? Who would they have to tell them what to think? Do they have any sense of intellectual inadequacy for not being able to decide what is important to them, form their own opinions, and communicate them to us in their own terms?
They call Kerry a flip-flopper, as if they don’t respect someone who makes it a matter of American policy. Allow me to point out a few examples of GW flip-flopping…
Bush:
Said he supported the patient’s bill of rights (as Gov)…..lie. He vigorously fought against it.
Promised to change the tone of Washington…….not.
Pledged a more “humble ” foreign policy……hmmm.
Sniffed at the notion of “nation building”……no.
Declared himself a determined unilateralist…now has Powell kissing butts around the world, seeking help for Iraq.
Would not negotiate with North Korea. ……then did, now doesn’t again.
Opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security……sure, tough guy.
Opposed the creation of the Sept. 11 commission….flippy floppy. Opposed the creation of the post of national intelligence director…..good job, stick to your guns!
Said gay marriage was a state’s issue, now supports a Constitutional Amendment that restricts a states’ rights
Mocked Gore’s tax credit for Hybrid Cars….now supports investing in Hybrid Cars….
Supported extending Assault Weapons Ban…now opposses it.
Said Osama bin Laden was our Number One priority…now, “I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important.”
Was against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform… then signed it into law.
Against tariffs… Not gonna have ’em …then puts ’em on steel, then lifts ’em (under pressure).
Too bad for the millions of people around the world who will die from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease, etc. that he doesn’t flip flop one more time on something of such great importance.
Now we have the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush bashing another war hero like they did to John McCain in 2000, and not a shred of outrage from the right. Considering that not one single American recalls ever seeing GW report for duty in Alabama (much less FIGHT in Vietnam) after spending millions of taxpayer dollars learning to fly, how are we to take the choreographed flag-waving patriotic displays coming from the right seriously? How are we to justify investigating the allegations put forth by the “swiftboaters for bush” when they don’t take issue with GWs treatment of McCain or demand that their President come clean on his whereabouts and conduct while in the military?
So many questions, yet not a single straightforward answer or tough question for GW from the right.
Must be because FoxNews hasn’t had the courage to do it first so they could tell their constituency (marketshare?) what to think and how to answer.
So what have we learned? That ALL politicians flip flop and “lie” and . That’s how they got where they are.
August 11th, 2004 at 7:29 pm
Wow, I feel like I walked away from a casual, straightforward conversation, and returned a little later to a riot!!!
How did this thread morph into a Michael Moore argument?
Anyway, here are my promised links (provided that I did it right) to some critiques of some Krugman columns. It basically shows a fairly regular pattern of inconsistancies, deliberate distortions, or downright lies that are common for Krugman as he sells his economist soul for the sake of his partisan politics. There are plenty more links out there to be found.
So, in reference to my oringinal point, Krugman is no academic truth-speaker meekly minding his own business until the playground verbal bully tries to bloody his nose. He makes plenty of bold, divisive, damming statements that people take as gospel due to his education and his NYT bully pulpit. But his sometimes reckless rantings need to be called out for what they are. Deliberate distortions and lies to support a stridently partisan mindset.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_07_25_archive.html#109091171256684858
http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_07_01_econopundit_archive.html#108998202052633378
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6861
http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_12_21_chronArchive.asp#107204294239609958
http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_12_07_chronArchive.asp#107112841471377301
August 11th, 2004 at 9:41 pm
Heh. As I noted above, this piece managed to snag the #1 googlerank for searches on “o’reilly krugman russert”, meaning we got several hundred visitors looking to voice opinions on that show. And voice they have! :-)
On your links to Krugman-debunking pieces, thank you very much for the follow-through. In reading through them, though, I remain unimpressed by the “downright lies” characterization. All the people you linked come off as either having their own ideological axe to grind (Antler, Hogberg, and Luskin), or pick at stuff that isn’t lying as much as ordinary rhetorical devices (the “Arabian candidate” criticisms from Fritz, for example), or both. The worst thing they seem to be able to demonstrate is that Krugman is ideologically opposed to the policies being pursued by Bush, and sometimes chooses and presents his facts in a way that is designed to make the best case possible for his position. (Oh my gosh! Krugman said that a study showed that real income of the lowest-earning 90% of the country had fallen 7% between 1973 and 2000, when the actual figure was 6.74%! Horrors!)
In the context of the kind of high-profile garbage that the other side is producing these days (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone?), Krugman’s sins, at least as described in these pieces, seem really minor.
August 11th, 2004 at 9:56 pm
I wouldn’t go by what Luskin says, Craig. Although he is not poor, he certainly is stupid (or thinks his National Review readers are.)
August 12th, 2004 at 6:25 am
There are numerous other links that I could use as well, but if your criteria of who a valid author can be is someone without an ideological opposing view, then you are assuming that such people, as a whole, can’t make truthful arguments. You also then make invalid the very bloggers and sources that you use to make your own points, as they obviously have a specific political viewpoint as well.
Unless you believe the “truth” resides in only one camp of opinion!
My main point is simply that Krugman is guided by his own partisan bent to willfully distort and outright lie about his subject matter. Yes, many others do so, and some may do it even more blantantly, but I felt it necessary to provide a fresh breath of reality to some Krugman apostles who see him as this shining knight of integrity, slaying all the evil dragons of darkness with a sword of truth.
August 12th, 2004 at 6:53 am
I’m not saying the people you’ve linked to are unworthy of consideration; obviously not, since I’ve read and considered their arguments. But the strong ideological bias they display has to be included in that consideration.
It’s the same with Krugman. Obviously, he’s partisan, too. I haven’t argued that he’s some shining knight of integrity; I can’t think of anyone with a national audience these days who I’d characterize that way. In the main, though, I think his criticisms of Bush are honest and fair, and none of the links you’ve provided (so far, at least), have swayed me from that position.
You’re satisfied that Krugman is a habitual liar when it comes to his criticisms of Bush. Fine. I’ll factor that belief of yours into my own future analysis of Krugman’s statements. From my perspective, though, you’ve failed to present convincing evidence for that claim.
August 12th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
i think kenney summed up very well a lot of the problems people have with bush. it’s not a matter of being a paranoid american hating communist. it’s common sense. besides, the guy can’t even speak english. i personally don’t know a single person below the age of 35 who can even stand him. i take that back, there is one guy.
the hypocrisy and arrogance and “watch what you say, watch what you do” crap is unprecedented.
the career politician is the enemy of freedom.
the sad thing is that i am voting for kerry, not because i particularly like him, but because NO ONE could possibly fuck things up worse than shrub and his neo-con cronies.
of course, blaming bush is like blaming mickey mouse for Eurodisney.
it’s not bush who scares me, it’s rummy and wolfy and cheney and karl rove and scooter libby……………
you know the list.
read “the project for the new american century”
that’s who these guys are.
it sucks, but it’s true.
they aren’t as concerned with fighting terrorism as they are with positioning themselves geopolitically so that their elite network can sustain the damage that another terrorist strike would cause.
if this wasn’t true, you’d think they would fight terrorism, wouldn’t they?
September 15th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
Craig —
I appreciate your links. And you know, they’ve got some good arguments that Krugman’s interpretation of the facts are sometimes incorrect.
And so I… oh wait, did you see that? Incorrect. Not the same as lying. I don’t see anything that proves to me that Krugman was saying something he knew or believed to be untrue. To be wrong is not to be lying. Guess what — all economists who make predictions end up being wrong, quite often. There may be a case about him using selective evidence — which is in reality almost as bad as lying — but consider this: no argument, no article, ESPECIALLY no article in the NY Times can provide all possible arguments and counter-arguments. This is not to say this is a good thing, or exempts Krugman from a great responsibility to try and find a way to always include all pertinent information — but summarizing, yes, even summarzing the positive evidence — is not lying. It would be lying if: you could prove the debate was resolved and Krugman knew it was resolved beforehand.
Most of the websites linked simply disagree with rhetorical devices or inaccurate or controversial predictions/interpretations when the data isn´t clear (i.e. emphasizing the burden on the poor instead of the burden on the wealthy is certainly NOT lying — indeed, the desirability of either burden depends on your viewpoints, and implying the burden on the poor is more important is not a lie but an opinion, one you can disagree with but can~t invalidate as a point of fact). Also i.e. the Arabian Candidate – he is clearly insinuating shady motives for the government. However, two things are clear: he was being semi-satirical (which means using exageration to make a point, which means refuting a literal interpretation is a pointless and stupid exercise that misses the point) and also that while he cannot know the REAL motives of the Administration, guessing as to what they are isn’t lying. Hell, I don’t even think it~s irresponsible. It’s impossible to know a politician, or any public figure’s true motives and thoughts, usually. Imputing motives based on supposition is usually the only possible method, and people can virulently disagree as to the truth, but history shows us president~s motives are almost invariably more complex or different than what they claimed, and often in line with those who supposed based on inconclusive evidence.
There are several refutations of Krugman’s data. Those seem valid, but I don’t have the expertise to evaluate all of them. Those where the author says he can’t find the numbers Krugman claims to have used seem to clearly point out an error, but a) you have to take the refuter~s word for it that the numbers were different/wrong, and b) the refuter/accuser needs to prove Krugman KNEW his numbers were wrong and simply did not make a mistake. And this, like one of the other refuters said, isn’t possible — he can’t know what Krugman knew or if he intentionally used erred numbers unless he more or less saw or heard Krugman saying “I know it~s not there, I~ll use it anyway” or can show two pieces of Krugman’s work citing the same study but using (or misuing) different parts of the facts.
I fully believe Krugman is fallible. I even believe he’s a talking head — only parts of the truth, all of the time. But then again, as every academic knows, you can NEVER hope to represent the whole truth, and indeed, for Krugman or anyone else to even try, TV is going to have to give debates hours, not minutes, to resolve themselves. Few, if any points of significance can be resolved in a several-minute exchange; calling an incomplete argument a lie is itself a lie. (And a theory without facts is not a lie in any possible way, it’s just a weak theory, unless it flies in the face of facts the writer himself admits are true.)
(Also interesting: one of the charges was that Krugman claimed that the terror alerts were used to bury Bush critics, and that he can~t prove this. Again, him voicing a common hunch seems hard to construe as a lie, even without documentary evidence. here is a website claiming to have found a statistical correlation between dipping Bush approval ratings and terror alerts.
He may very well be incorrect — but it implies there~s at least a plausible argument that the two are connected — so Krugman’s unsupported intution (not lie) may indeed be supported…)
(ps yes, it’s obvious the guy doing the stats is anti-Bush. this doesn’t relieve onus on those who disagree with his analysis to disprove it rather than simply cry shrilly “he’s lying!” It is possible to both be partisan and tell the truth — hell, I’m sure FOX tells the truth SOMETIMES, as well as CNN and the rest of the right-controled media; partisanship means you should be wary, not stop listening and thinking.)
September 15th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Update: found a refutation on the terror-alert ratings link.
It~s here, but imo, it’s not terribly strong. Or rather, it’s terribly inconclusive.
He critiques the methodology used to find the correlation. Very valid, and he’s also right that correlation doesn’t prove causation, but note that a) his methodological critique simply says that he thinks it may be a false positive; he does not say the method used is completely invalid, and b) correlation is used almost exclusively these days to infer causation; the fact that you have to be careful simply means you have to test, and retest, and usually posit a mechanism for what you see.
All that being said, the point is not whether or not Krugman was RIGHT, but whether or not one could plausibly believe what he said in the face of ambiguous evidence. And even if you couldn’t plausibly believe it, you could conclude he is wildy wrong or wildly partisan, but having a minority opinion based on faulty evidence is not lying –it’s often insignificant, and occasionally a truth that changes the world (cf. Einstein, Charles Drew, pretty much any abolitionist from 200 years ago…)
January 11th, 2005 at 5:31 am
I’d have to agree that the creation/evolution segment was probably unfair, because of O’Reilly not getting a natural history professor who’s experienced in debate instead of an economics professor, but you all are still being “intolerant” and “narrow-minded” when it comes to teaching alternatives like Creationism and Intelligent-Design in addition to your pet theory.