By Noel Sheppard
Readers are strongly advised to remove food, fluids, and flammables from
proximity to their computers prior to reading any further. You've been
warned!
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said on ABC's This Week Sunday, "It's terribly unfair that [President Obama is] being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
But in Krugman's view, "it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress."
Is it possible to be more wrong about something and still be considered a "journalist" worthy of coveted invitations on the nation's top political talk shows?
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said on ABC's This Week Sunday, "It's terribly unfair that [President Obama is] being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Can I just -- these are --
these are -- we're talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15
trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program,
which has been -- by and large had a pretty good track record. Of course you're
going to find a mistake. I think, to be fair, that's probably true in
Massachusetts, as well.
But
this is -- this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps
which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain
-- Bain Capital had losers, too, right, even from the point of view of its
investors? So this is ridiculous.
And the fact of the matter is, this president has not
managed to get very much of what he wanted done. He -- it's terribly unfair that
he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had
been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.
I guess the Nobel laureate in economics was out of the country when Obama
controlled the House of Representatives and enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority
in the Senate, something that according to
Time magazine's Karen Tumulty hadn't really happened since the Great
Depression:
You have to go all the way back to 1937 to find the last
American President who enjoyed what was, in practice, a filibuster-proof
majority in the Senate, according to Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie.
That was when Franklin D. Roosevelt, having just won what was then the biggest
re-election victory in history, permanently alienated Southern Democrats by
trying to “pack” the Supreme Court with the addition of two more justices.
[...]
In Jimmy Carter’s first term, for instance, there were more
than 60 Democrats in the Senate. However, conservatives such as James Allen of
Alabama often voted more to the right than their Republican colleagues, while
there were liberal Republicans such as New York’s Jacob Javits who rarely sided
with their own party. [...]
With Arlen Specter’s switch (and assuming, as Joe notes
below, that Al Franken ever gets sworn in), Barack Obama has the Magic 60 Votes
— and an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have envied.
So Obama from the position of political power had in the first two years of
his presidency "an opportunity that his predecessors would greatly have
envied."But in Krugman's view, "it's terribly unfair that he's being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress."
Is it possible to be more wrong about something and still be considered a "journalist" worthy of coveted invitations on the nation's top political talk shows?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/03/paul-krugman-its-terribly-unfair-obamas-being-judged-failure-economy#ixzz1wlXZqU5r