Why this commie is turning on Obama

[Ricter]

Ironically, Krugman says it best...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

"Obama / Nixon

Bruce Bartlett says what you’re not supposed to say: Obama has governed as a moderate conservative, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon. The frothing-at-the-mouth comments are an extra bonus.

And it is, of course, true; although Obama defenders would say that he had no option. Still, the point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing.

There are, however, two crucial points to understand.

First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. No matter how far right he moves, Republicans will move further right; and nothing he can do will keep them from denouncing him as a radical socialist.

Second, moderate conservatism isn’t working as a policy matter. As I’ve tried to tell everyone from the beginning of the Lesser Depression, a deeply depressed economy in which monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound turns the normal rules of policy upside down. We’re in a world in which conventional prudence is folly, in which playing it safe is extremely risky. And we have, alas, a conventionally prudent, play-it-safe president — the kind of president who might have done fine in the 1990s, but not now."

 

[Max E.]

You know the president is a complete fuckup when his own party tries to claim that he is working for the other side.

It is the same principal as when conservatives tried to claim bush was a liberal.

Quote from Ricter:

Ironically, Krugman says it best...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

"Obama / Nixon

Bruce Bartlett says what you’re not supposed to say: Obama has governed as a moderate conservative, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon. The frothing-at-the-mouth comments are an extra bonus.

And it is, of course, true; although Obama defenders would say that he had no option. Still, the point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing.

There are, however, two crucial points to understand.

First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. No matter how far right he moves, Republicans will move further right; and nothing he can do will keep them from denouncing him as a radical socialist.

Second, moderate conservatism isn’t working as a policy matter. As I’ve tried to tell everyone from the beginning of the Lesser Depression, a deeply depressed economy in which monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound turns the normal rules of policy upside down. We’re in a world in which conventional prudence is folly, in which playing it safe is extremely risky. And we have, alas, a conventionally prudent, play-it-safe president — the kind of president who might have done fine in the 1990s, but not now."

 

[tradinglucy]

But of course! Nobody wants to be associated with a fuckup.

Quote from Max E. Pad:

You know the president is a complete fuckup when his own party tries to claim that he is working for the other side.

It is the same principal as when conservatives tried to claim bush was a liberal.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I have a fundamental question: at what point does a once respected newspaper take some minimal responsibility for the nonsense that it publishes? As odious as MSNBC is, at least it gave the heaveho to Olbermann. He was doing what many would have deemed impossible, damaging their brand. He was clearly crazy, which undercut the vile, hard left position MSNBC is pushing.

Krugman seems to me to be doing the same thing. Obama is right of Nixon? Seriously? The same Nixon who devoted his entire career to battling communism and was hated by the liberal elites for it? The same Nixon who won the presidency using the so-called "southern strategy" of appealing to disaffected whites?

They are similar in that Nixon also made economic policy mistakes, but his were rounding errors compared to the damage obama has inflicted on the country.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Ironically, Krugman says it best...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

"Obama / Nixon

Bruce Bartlett says what you’re not supposed to say: Obama has governed as a moderate conservative, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon. The frothing-at-the-mouth comments are an extra bonus.

And it is, of course, true; although Obama defenders would say that he had no option. Still, the point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing.

There are, however, two crucial points to understand.

First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. No matter how far right he moves, Republicans will move further right; and nothing he can do will keep them from denouncing him as a radical socialist.

Second, moderate conservatism isn’t working as a policy matter. As I’ve tried to tell everyone from the beginning of the Lesser Depression, a deeply depressed economy in which monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound turns the normal rules of policy upside down. We’re in a world in which conventional prudence is folly, in which playing it safe is extremely risky. And we have, alas, a conventionally prudent, play-it-safe president — the kind of president who might have done fine in the 1990s, but not now."

Haha....Krugman again.

Quote Bozo the Clown. Same intellectual level, and more entertaining.

 

[Illum]

Krugman is delirious. He expects too much from Obama. He wants a complete government takeover. He doesn't understand Obama can't. Yet anyway. Krugman actually thinks we all want his brand gov sponsored life, he has no understanding of the resistance he faces, or what a lowlife moron he is.

Obama has tried to take over our health, shut down business in the name of global warming. This bill would even have green gastapo running around your property. Because they are failing, suddenly Obama is conservative? lol Maybe he just can't get it done for you. Maybe nobody wants what you want Krugman. Asshat.

 

[JamesL]

Makes you wonder whether Krugman deserved HIS Nobel prize more than Obama, doesn't it?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from JamesL:

Makes you wonder whether Krugman deserved HIS Nobel prize more than Obama, doesn't it?

Actually, it makes me ask myself, "do I question a man's credentials when I don't like the things he says?"

 

[Artful D0dger]

Well Ric I don't know what to say other than I'm shocked to hear this racist hate speech coming from you. You obviously just can't accept the fact that there's a black man in the white house.

Quote from Ricter:

Ironically, Krugman says it best...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

"Obama / Nixon

Bruce Bartlett says what you�re not supposed to say: Obama has governed as a moderate conservative, somewhat to the right of Richard Nixon. The frothing-at-the-mouth comments are an extra bonus.

And it is, of course, true; although Obama defenders would say that he had no option. Still, the point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing.

There are, however, two crucial points to understand.

First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. No matter how far right he moves, Republicans will move further right; and nothing he can do will keep them from denouncing him as a radical socialist.

Second, moderate conservatism isn�t working as a policy matter. As I�ve tried to tell everyone from the beginning of the Lesser Depression, a deeply depressed economy in which monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound turns the normal rules of policy upside down. We�re in a world in which conventional prudence is folly, in which playing it safe is extremely risky. And we have, alas, a conventionally prudent, play-it-safe president � the kind of president who might have done fine in the 1990s, but not now."