What Paul Krugman seems to be doing is helping the establishment that the New York Times is connected to... what's interesting is that what he seems to be doing (muddying the issues with false logic to help his chosen special interest group) has been going on for a long time.
First some background information for the context of Paul Krugman's & the New York Times views;
Now lets begin with a short rebuttal of key points in Paul Krugman's latest dishonest hit job on Sanders (Paul Krugman's words are in bold italic and my response is next)
Paul Krugman: Sanders Over the Edge
From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.
Maybe. But if what is realistic is what Hillary does, i.e. have one position till she gets money & changes position, then maybe realism is not what we need here. The following video is of Elizabeth Warren explaining how Hillary changed positions when Wall Street started giving her money (that's what's going on at the New York Times & with Paul Krugman, isn't it);
US Uncut: Hillary Clinton: “Name one time I changed due to Wall Street money.” Elizabeth Warren: OK, allow me.
US Uncut: Hillary Clinton: “Name one time I changed due to Wall Street money.” Elizabeth Warren: OK, allow me.
there was one moment in which Clinton made a challenge to her detractors. She rallied against her label of “establishment,” claiming that the title is misused on her, and further claimed that her ties to Wall Street are a non-issue, alleging that she has never changed a vote as a result of campaign contributions or other financial influence. “Name one time I changed due to Wall Street money,” she challenged.
Unfortunately for her, there is already a record of quite possibly the most well-respected progressive detailing exactly that scenario.
Back in 2004, Elizabeth Warren sat with Bill Moyers to discuss a bankruptcy regulation bill that was first championed, then opposed by Clinton after she spoke with lobbyists. (This video recaps Clinton’s debate remarks. To start with the Warren interview, skip to 1:04.)
Highlights
Moving on to the next relevant point;
The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?
It doesn't matter if big banks were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis or not, the point is we don't want to have a situation where, like Lehman Brothers, if we let it fall we end up in a financial crisis, i.e. no bank or ANY institution should be too big to fail (I would like to note that with Goldman Sachs billion dollar settlement, this point seems moot and also very revealing about the kind of lack of thought this "economist" put into this belief... kinda like what I said before about him);
Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.
No it doesn't. It's like a Christmas Light Linkup. If one bulb goes out the whole strand won't light up. If one bank crashes and brings the whole system down with it because they are ALL too big to fail. Then we have a too big to fail problem which needs to be eliminated (I may look into replying to his more involved piece in the first link above on one of my days off... I can't believe he seems to be defending not breaking up the too bog to fail institutions! Clearly, Krugman bought!)
The most interesting part about this weird position of Paul Krugman is that he is essentially arguing the same thing that Alan Greenspan did, i.e. 'we don't need to police the banks, they are his friends and he/we trusts them'. This situation has been covered historically by PBS and can shed some light on this situation;
PBS - :The Warning: Long before the meltdown, one woman tried to warn about a threat to the financial system (i.e. involving the banks).
Moving on
But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.
But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.
Wow! What hypocrisy! Hillary has been smearing Bernie like nobody's business - calling him a communist through her Super Pac and smearing him by saying he smeared her when he didn't (see video & images above of Elizabeth Warren) or simply saying 'I'll release my Wall Street transcripts if others release thiers' ... WHO? She's running against Bernie Sanders and he has nothing to release! There are some VERY serious character and values issues that need to be a part of a VERY public discussion... but its Hillary that needs to be on the stand.
It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.
Sanders took his views from a report by Greenpeace. That's not dishonest, that is a mistake. Calling it dishonest is a lie or proof Paul Krugman is an idiot. Either one is fine with me BUT those ARE the ONLY two realistic choices.
That said, if Bernie Sanders hasn't even tried to make the case that Wall Street campaign donations haven't distorted her position DESPITE A VIDEO OF ELIZABETH WARREN SAYING THAT VERY THING! (see above) Then I will be very disappointed. Here is the video again proving Hillary's connections to Wall Street HAVE distorted her positions in the past;
And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified” to be president.
She is NOT qualified to be President. She lacks judgment and compassion. Her past decisions prove lack of judgement and the company she keeps - with her record - proves lack of compassion (& I'm not even talking about her racist tactics against Obama or to help her Co-Prez husband pass the 1994 crime bill)
Articles:
But Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.
Hillary Clinton has supported those trade agreements 45 times before she decided to lie and pretend that's her new position.
As for the Iraq War vote... she didn't just vote for it, she adamantly & passionately supported it;
This shows how little judgement she has in important situations and her judgement in important situation is EXACTLY the job she's applying for). rankly, we need someone with good judgment to be Commander in Chief NOT Apologizer in Chief.
This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).
Standard of purity for Hilary Clinton! Here is how unpure she really is;
The Hillary Clinton Chronicles
As for the guns issue, liberals really have lost their minds here. It's the fear of death, I think, that guns represent to them (stress) that halts their ability to think (as they allow millions of colored people to die overseas. Enough said.)
Here is another guy, who is more polite (liberals don't get very rude, if things get real hot they just run and hide). These articles outline Paul Krugman's hypocrisy on Bernie Sanders as per his paper policy.. or his paper's policies as per Paul Krugman (same people own them both, I'm sure);Article; We need to set Paul Krugman straight about Bernie: Pundit’s latest Sanders hit job misses the entire point of his campaign Bernie hasn't become a "Bernie Bro" by attacking Hillary — he's addressing the concerns of a large bloc of voters
As pundits go, Paul Krugman is often a voice of sanity in a whirlwind of noise. But his latest column, titled “Sanders Over the Edge,” badly misfires.
The point, presumably, is to dismiss Sanders has a disconnected lightweight, a candidate coasting on slogans and devoid of substance. “From the beginning,” Krugman writes, “many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues – including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform – he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking.”
There’s a modicum of truth to this complaint. Bernie can be a one-trick pony on the stump, over-promising and relying on oft-repeated platitudes. But there isn’t a presidential campaign about which that can’t be said. And Sanders, generally speaking, is among the most substantive and least focus-grouped candidates in recent history. In any case, Krugman goes much farther than this:
“Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and coltishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing: what about the candidate himself? Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro.”
Krugman is objecting to Sanders recent decision to step up his attacks on Clinton; in particular, his focus on her financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, as well as his recent – and admittedly ill-advised – remarks about Clinton not being “qualified” for the presidency.
To be clear: there is no defense of Sanders’ comments about Clinton’s qualifications. There are a hundred different critiques one can make of Clinton, but her qualifications aren’t one. This seems to me beyond dispute. Sanders may have been baited into saying this by some misleading reports, but that’s no excuse: It was a mistake – end of discussion.
But to argue, as Krugman does, that the Sanders campaign has “lost its ethical moorings” by going after Clinton’s relationship with fossil fuel lobbyist is wrong-headed and misses the entire point of his campaign. Sure, we can quibble about the specific amount of dollars Clinton has accepted from the industry, and perhaps Sanders has exaggerated on this front, but there’s no question money has indeed been exchanged.
And it’s not just about campaign donations. As Naomi Klein notes in The Guardian, “there’s all the cash that fossil fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation…Exxon, Shell, Conoco Phillips and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation.” Against the backdrop of a recent International Business Timesinvestigation into at least two of these companies lobbying Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, it’s essential to raise these questions.
It’s perfectly fair – and necessary – to ask, as Sanders has, if the money Clinton has received from the fossil fuel industry has influenced her policies in any way, especially when Sanders has accepted zero dollars from this sector. “Holding people accountable for their past is O.K.,” Krugman writes,” but imposing a standard of purity, in which compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t.”
No doubt there’s an element of Bernie’s base obsessed with ideological purity (I’veexperienced this firsthand), but that’s not the fault of the candidate. Sanders has said explicitly that he would support Clinton over any GOP candidate. “On her worst day,” Sanders conceded at the first Democratic debate, “Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.” Does that sound like a candidate drunk on his own purity?
The truth, as Krugman tacitly admits, is that these complaints are less about the merits and more about protecting Clinton. “Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the ‘Bernie or Bust’ crowd, walking away if he can’t pull of an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?,” writes Krugman.
Here’s what he’s doing: speaking for a large bloc of voters for whom these questions really matter. Sanders has said from the beginning that it will take much more than a single election to accomplish meaningful change. Is there a gap between Bernie’s goals and the political capital needed to accomplish those goals? Absolutely. But the only path forward involves greater participation and awareness. Clinton, qualified though she is, represents a system against which Sanders is protesting. The Wall Street connections, the philanthrocapitalism of the Clinton Foundation, the pro-corporate policies – all of these are fair game. Discussing these issues isn’t imposing a “purity” test – it’s the essence of Sander’s campaign.
This notion that Sanders ought to adhere to some nebulous “good behavior” standard for the sake of a general election is an affront to his campaign and its supporters. The “not qualified” blunder aside, Sanders has been exceedingly respectful of his competitor. But he has every right to emphasize the ways in which Clinton exemplifies the cracks in our corrupt system.
No comments:
Post a Comment