Media Search:



Bill Black: Krugman Bashes Progressives for Criticizing Obama on Grounds that He Criticizes Obama

Lambert here: Its a shame to see Krugman kick the left (Susie Madrak has the definitive post on this). But then, when youve won the Nobel Prize for Obotics, that comes with the territory.

By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives

Paul Krugmans admirers would never list modesty as one of his characteristics. He has written a column In Defense of Obama that begins by explaining that his criticisms of President Obama were correct, but that unidentified others criticisms of Obama constitute trash talk.

Specifically, Obama came perilously close to doing terrible thingsto the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain. Obama sought to produce a self-inflicted disaster by desperately trying to reach a Grand Bargain with Republicans that would have inflicted austerity on our Nation in 2012, slash[ed] Social Security and [raised] the Medicare [eligibility] age. As even Krugman admits, we were saved from this catastrophe only by Republican greed, the GOPs unwillingness to make even token concessions to achieve the Grand Bargain. What Krugman omits in the tale is that it was also a revolt by Democratic progressives against the Grand Bargain that saved Obama and the Nation.

Krugman does not, in this column, explain the consequences and implications of the disaster that Obama tried so hard to inflict on us. First, it would help the reader to inform them that achieving the Grand Bargain became Obamas top domestic priority.

It would have aided the reader for Krugman to explain that as part of the Grand Bargain Obama was also trying to inflict austerity on the U.S. in response to the Great Recession. Had Obama succeeded he would have thrown the Nation back into a second Great Recession for the reasons that Krugman has often explained. This would have doomed his reelection chances and caused catastrophic losses to the Democratic Party in other 2012 elections.

Readers doubtless would have found it useful to know that that Obama ran for office on the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare from the cuts he sought to inflict. They also would find it useful to know that once Obama legitimized attacking the safety net programs it would make them fair game for unilateral Republican attacks on the safety net when they took control of the White House.

Krugman blames Obamas effort to enter into the Grand Betrayal as occurring because Obama was nave. He presents no support for that claim. Contemporaneous press accounts based on leaks from the White House revealed that Obama was motivated by a desire for fame. The Grand Bargain was to be his legacy and the fact that the Grand Bargain betrayed his supporters was the factor that demonstrated that he was a statesman. Democratic Presidents establish that they are serious by publicly betraying and deriding their progressive base.

Krugman defines Obamas critics as illegitimate. Krugman labels Obamas critics as engaging in Obama-bashing. Krugman goes on to label progressive critics of Obama as Obama-bash[ers] by mischaracterizing the criticisms and then dismissing straw man arguments that he crafts as not requiring refutation because the criticisms are obviously not serious.

Theres a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. Theyre outraged that Wall Street hasnt been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that neoliberal economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. Its hard to take such claims seriously.

Go here to see the original:
Bill Black: Krugman Bashes Progressives for Criticizing Obama on Grounds that He Criticizes Obama

Eat shit liberals – Video


Eat shit liberals

By: Drew Walker

Here is the original post:
Eat shit liberals - Video

Liberals set to retain WA by-election seat

October 19, 2014, 12:57 pm

The Liberals have declared victory in the West Australian seat of Vasse, although there has been a significant swing against the party.

Libby Mettam, a journalist-turned-media adviser for MP Barry House, currently holds 44.36 per cent of the vote, after 81.21 per cent was counted on Saturday night.

Her closest competitor was Busselton businessman Peter Gordon from the Nationals who secured 28.53 per cent from the early count.

In the two-candidate preferred vote, Ms Mettam secured 53.45 per cent while Mr Gordon held 46.55 per cent.

It was a 14 per cent drop for the Liberal Party since the 2013 election.

Since postal votes can be accepted until Thursday, counting will resume then.

Ms Mettam campaigned that she wanted to see local health and education services upgraded in line with the region's growing population, while also protecting natural assets.

She told a public forum in the lead-up to the election that she was willing to cross the floor on the issue of fracking in the South West region if it was what people in her electorate wanted.

The other four candidates in the by-election were structural engineer Michael Baldock for the Greens, Wayne Barnett for the Australian Christians, and independents Peter Johnson and Teresa Van Lieshout.

See the original post here:
Liberals set to retain WA by-election seat

Maddow Explains Why Democrats Suck – Video


Maddow Explains Why Democrats Suck
MSNBC #39;s Rachel Maddow has become increasingly frustrated with the way Democratic congressional candidates have run their campaigns ahead of the November midterm elections. When she ...

By: Secular Talk

Original post:
Maddow Explains Why Democrats Suck - Video

Suburban Democrats focused on GOTV – get out the vote

As usual, the motherlode for Pennsylvania's gubernatorial candidates this November isn't in coal country or around the Marcellus Shale.

It's in and around Philadelphia.

The city and Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties account for more than 33 percent of Pennsylvania's registered voters, according to the latest totals.

"Victory in statewide elections run through the Philly suburbs," said Chris Borick, director of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion. "The number of voters and their ability to swing makes them the Holy Grail of state politics."

And, in a less than encouraging re-election sign for Gov. Corbett, those once solidly Republican areas are no longer.

Democrats now account for more than 43 percent of voters in the counties, and own the registration edge in Bucks, Montgomery and Delaware. Republicans still hold the advantage in Chester, though even that lead is dwindling, the data shows.

"The Republicans have spent a significant amount of money and energy attacking the President," said John Cordisco, the Bucks County Democratic Committee chair. "I would have thought that would have an effect on the registration, which it has not."

Read more:
Suburban Democrats focused on GOTV - get out the vote