January 26th, 2010

Paul Krugman does not heart Obama

Paul Krugman is very angry at President Obama for his spending freeze proposal.

And when I say “very,” I mean very. Krugman’s most recent piece is short, only 214 words. But it contains a surprising amount of death imagery—mostly in a quote from blogger Jonathan Zasloff, but also in the title of Krugmans’s piece: “Obama liquidates himself.”

Wow. I have been impressed by the growing rage of the left towards Obama, eclipsing almost everything I’ve seen from the right. But this is chilling. The right never believed in Obama and so feels neither surprised nor betrayed. Krugman, on the other hand, quotes “a correspondent” as having written to him saying, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

I would imagine Krugman is speaking obliquely of himself as well.

52 Responses to “Paul Krugman does not heart Obama”

  1. Mr. Frank Says:

    During the campaign when Obama was running as a centrist, the left must have thought he was lying to get elected. Apparently that was OK with them.

  2. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Jeez, Mr. Frank.
    You don’t think the lefties believed him, do you?

  3. ahem Says:

    That’s what’s so hard about being a Leftie–they’re all such gullible nut sacks–er, bags.

  4. Danny L. McDaniel Says:

    There is nothing to cheer about. We got three more years of this stuff. Hillary was right. It takes more than speech.

  5. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    I think that many people who voted for Obama, regardless of their politics, assumed that he was lying to get elected. Ann Althouse, for example — no lefty by any means — claimed blithely, before the election, that she was sure Obama didn’t mean it when he said he didn’t support gay marriage. (She’s not so blithe about him any more.) Another moderate liberal of my acquaintance explained to me that though she didn’t believe all of his promises, she thought that they were “poetic license” and perfectly okay. Meanwhile, however, they were both apparently certain that he did mean the various promises — whatever they were — that gained their votes. How they decided which claims to believe and which were flim-flam, and why they wanted to vote for somebody they knew was willing to lie to them, is entirely beyond me.

  6. pablo panadero Says:

    I had thought that there would be three waves to the tsunami that would knock the wheels off of the Obama presidency. However, Scott Brown delivered two waves almost simultaneously. The first wave was the Republicans getting some backbone, the second was the realization of the Independents that he is an empty suit, and the third as to be the abandonment of Obama by the media. Looks like the third wave is here, and possibly the 4th wave of the leftists realizing that he is a Chicago corruption puppet.

  7. physicsguy Says:

    Actually Beck was warning of this exact thing a few nights ago. His basic thesis is that a lot of those in the administration, and also a lot of supporters, are the extreme radicals, ala ex- Weathermen, SDS, etc. If they don’t think things are going their way with Obama, they may throw HIM under the bus, and then take things into their own bomb throwing hands. Be careful what you wish for.

  8. JKB Says:

    “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

    Nice to see them coming around to the opinion those of us who didn’t support Obama had of his supporters. Idiots.

    I suspect Obama will learn, Hell hath no fury like a believer scorned, especially liberals scorned.

  9. huxley Says:

    There’s great consternation over at the good ship Daily Kos as well.

    They seemed to have staved off the mutiny and decided that the “freeze” is not as terrible as they initially thought and besides, what is one to do otherwise — vote Republican?

    It will be fascinating to watch the left’s continued writhing as Obama further disappoints and betrays them.

  10. Gringo Says:

    This is what happens when you run as an empty vessel into which the hopey changey folks can project their hopes. (I would have said “people,” but since our POTUS uses “folks” so often..)

    As Mrs. Whatsit points out, many assumed that when he said something that they did agree with, they assumed that he would go ahead and do what they wished. A.K.A. lying.

    The same disappointment could also occur when the hopey changey folk agreed with something he said. He was going to do what he was going to do, regardless of what he said on the campaign trail.

    This got even more confusing when he contradicted himself on the campaign trail. When some have objected in the last year that he had run as a centrist but had not governed as one, others have pointed out that he also made non-centrist statements, such as wanting to fundamentally transform the US.

    When you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to all people, or some things to no one.

  11. The Real Jeff Says:

    But somehow, they all seem to forget that we had told them repeatedly the things they are just realizing now and can’t quite swallow their pride enough to acknowledge that we were right all along. You’d think than since we were proven to be right that they would be a little curious about some of our other thoughts on the way things are going but they still want to blame everything on Sarah Palin even though she was right too.

  12. Scott Says:

    Republicans never liked Obama. He lost the Independents with the healthcare fiasco. Now the far left loons have given up on him. The few moderate Democrats who remain in the party like Evan Bayh are speaking out against him.

    Who continues to support him? Why are his approval ratings still close to 50%?

  13. huxley Says:

    Obama’s poll numbers with minorities, blacks, hispanics and Asians are way over 50%. Blacks are still 90+% behind Obama.

    However, white approval of Obama has dropped to 41%, so it’s not a healthy situation for race relations.

  14. effess Says:

    The wake of Brown’s MA victory, at this moment, less than one-week ago, is nothing less than astonishing. Obama/Coakley were rejected on wider range of issues than just healthcare — homeland security, reckless spending (pork in lieu of stimulus), with elitism as icing. With dwindling support among Democrats — center and left — it is becoming ever more likely that he will not run in 2012.

  15. NeoConScum Says:

    I LUV the smell of Lib-Lefties whining in the morning. It smells like…Victory.

  16. Perfected democrat Says:

    “And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated…”

    Two observations: First, it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of …. Second, I don’t mean to say I told you so, but I commented sometime ago that we should expect to see Obama and his gang pandering to the center if the heat was on, in order to hold on to critical voters and power; it’s classic taquia, just like he wore a kippah (skullcap) at the Western Wall in Jerusalem pandering for the Jewish vote, preparing for brazen backstabbing later….

  17. EBJ Says:

    I don’t get this “Republican worldview” thing. Since O’s move is all about the deficit (yes, it’s spending but a spending brake is only important in the context of the deficit) and during the Bush years the Dems railed against Republican deficits (who can forget the ‘deficits don’t matter’ revelation that Dems used to bash Republicans?). So how can lower deficits be evidence of a Republican worldview if the Dems have been claiming for the 8 years of Bush that they were the real deficit hawks?

    Unless they were lying. My god you have to be a sheep to follow the Democrat party. Just look at all the broken Obama promises. Bush I lost a second term for pennies on the dollar of Obama’s broken promises. Yet in 3 years does anyone doubt that Krugman will be waving the Obama flag with enthusiasm?

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    physicsguy: I am in complete agreement with you. I do not think that this level of rage on the left is a good thing at all. Among them are dangerous people who fully believe that the ends justify the means.

  19. Baklava Says:

    huxley, neither was the OJ trial.

    There was a huge racial divide on whether OJ was “guilty” or not.

  20. Artfldgr Says:

    unemployment is going to skyrocket.

    why?

    because a huge number of SBA type business make their money providing services to the government (under 5×5 in ny).

    this means that he is going to put out of business a ton of minority and women owned business.

    he wont put me out of business, the 8a program saw that i, not being a minority or a woman, was not entitled to extra money, tax discounts, energy discounts, payroll tax discounts, guaranteed loans, free office equipment and mentors and contacts…

    no wonder the banks wouldnt even talk to you at the open house’s i went to… they know you cant compete, so why bother talking to you?

    just type in small business into google and see what springs forth.. two are grants for women, loans for women…

    (aint none for us oppressors, like in germany when they took away things froma certain religious group – i did put up the mag article from german press that argued that they were only 3% of the population but owned more than their percentage of businesses… that argument is DIRECTLY the same from nazi germany to USA now today. or has anyone noticed diversity… making sure races have their proper amount. exactly the same. not slightly. not kind of. exactly. the reason is simple. the only thing that gets good people willing to kill or not care, is being cheated. so they copied how they got the people angry at jews in germany, to get them angry at the target groups here in the US. its a tool that only works if you dont know the facts and entertain what sonuds like reasonable mathematical arguments)

    so he is going to clobber a whole lot of these people.

    we are talking several percentage points of our economy….

    The world’s largest buyer of goods and services is the Federal Government, with purchases totaling more than $425 billion per year. The government especially encourages small businesses to bid on contracts for some of these needs. In fact, Federal agencies are required to establish contracting goals, with at least 23 percent of all government buying targeted to small firms.

    Selling to the Federal Government can provide significant revenues for your business—and the process is not as complicated as you may think. This section provides information that can help you position your company for contracting opportunities. It will help you understand the basics of selling to the government, show you how to get started and pursue opportunities, and provide resources that will give you the knowledge and skills you need to help you succeed. Just click on the link “For Small Business Owners.”

    http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/index.html

    the number of tiny businesses that do things for the state is HUGE…

    I know all this because when i lost my job a while back and was almost homeless, i went and tried to start my own firm, and move into government contracts after i did some consulting a while back for some wall street companies.

    anyway.. i went to attend their courses, and learned the truth about that (this just after learning the truth from our courts that i had no rights). and on top of all that free stuff and help, i found out about 5 x 5… there were two bid databases. and everyone goes into database A which 5 names are picked out by din and stuff like that… the OTHER database consists of ONLY minority and women owned companies and every bid had to also take 5 from that one.

    given that i technically make my living as an applied mathemetician, i saw that writing there.

    now, all those people who got all that, and started stuff… who rely on that to survive when they couldnt without it… they are going to not have contracts for a few years.

    by 2012, the 60% who live off state money will vote for obama just to eat

  21. Mrs Whatsit Says:

    The Indonesians don’t heart him any more, either.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hFv1KDPbvngI1hk4Y8UFGhAJkDpg

  22. Thomass Says:

    Richard Aubrey Says:

    “Jeez, Mr. Frank.
    You don’t think the lefties believed him, do you?”

    The left is semi factional between its kooks that really believe their own propaganda (which includes founding myths about them being anti corporate and/or corporations being against progressives like them) and its more realistic members… Funny thing, Clinton always represented (in my mind) the more mature variety. Re: who ‘gets’ that to do left wing change you need to work with business. Whereas, Obama campaigned to the true believers (and in some ways, probably actually is one)… which is why he does all these gestures to the KOS type kids. So in some ways, this conflict we see now might have been laid out years ago when Obama decided to appeal to the more lefty kooky base of his party… because you can’t really deliver to these people…

  23. Thomass Says:

    Mrs Whatsit Says:

    “Ann Althouse, for example — no lefty by any means — claimed blithely, before the election, that she was sure Obama didn’t mean it when he said he didn’t support gay marriage.”

    The irony… he told the truth about stuff people wanted him to lie about and lied about stuff people wanted the truth about!

  24. Barb the Evil Genius Says:

    Why should he do anything for Indonesia, though? He’s not their president.

  25. CV Says:

    Who would have thought that Kool-Aid would produce such a hangover?

    Krugman says “just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view.” Honestly, he really is clueless. When I heard about this spending freeze, my first thought was, more “smoke and mirrors” from the gang that can’t shoot straight.

    Over on NRO a couple of GOP senators agree that it’s just one more example of Obama saying one thing and doing another:

    “Two Republican senators tell National Review Online that the spending freeze is too little, too late from President Obama. Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) calls the president’s proposal mostly smoke and mirrors. “This administration doesn’t really want to cut spending,” he says. “They’re just playing the old political game where you say one thing and do another. By the time we see all of the exceptions, it’ll be clear that this kind of freeze won’t do much to solve our fiscal problems.”

    “Now, any movement to not spend more money is good, but the president’s proposal is insufficient,” Coburn says. “The president needs to focus on reducing the debt. To do that, we should be looking at more ways to cut the waste and redundancy in Washington. This just isn’t enough.” Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) agrees. He tells NRO that the president shouldn’t propose a spending freeze without first addressing how he wants to reign in the potential cost of his health-care plan. “If the president was really focused on jobs and the economy then he’d say it’s time to start over on heath care,” says Barrasso. “It’s also not a real freeze since it’s not indexed to inflation. The American people will eventually realize that this so-called freeze is nothing more than a drop in the bucket….”

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDExN2JhMmMyMjhiNzQ1YmYxZDFiOTJhNjI3OGUzYjA=

  26. Artfldgr Says:

    This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and
    then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted
    as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

    Benjamin Franklin

  27. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “a lot of those in the administration, and also a lot of supporters, are the extreme radicals, ala ex- Weathermen, SDS, etc. If they don’t think things are going their way with Obama, they may throw HIM under the bus, and then take things into their own bomb throwing hands. Be careful what you wish for.” physics guy

    “I am in complete agreement with you. I do not think that this level of rage on the left is a good thing at all. Among them are dangerous people who fully believe that the ends justify the means.” neo-neocon

    I don’t worry about the nutcases, their radicalism acts as a self-limiting governor upon their effectiveness.

    I do worry (a bit) about the racial component, there’s a reason why Obama’s approval numbers among non-whites are 90+, and its a variation on the old “he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he’s our son-of-a-bitch”.

    Those groups are not going to let go of Obama easily, the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s are surely going to play the race card, as Obama’s numbers decline even further. And the proper response is not to get defensive, it’s to get right back in the faces of those making racial accusations.

  28. mezzrow Says:

    One commenter (ostensibly from China) excitedly adds:

    Chomsky TOTALLY predicted Obama’s behavior-as he said “no change coming from Obama”.

    Well, that setlles it, then.

    One thing though – I’m not proud about enjoying this (even though I do) – we have tough sledding ahead, and the guy in charge hasn’t a clue.

  29. Sangiovese Says:

    Having lived through the Jimmy Carter era (gag) I can predict a repeat of history. Obama will become so unpopular and impotent that he will face a primary challenge in 2012. He will still win the nomination but will be damaged goods and will lose to a conservative Republican in November. The winner will have to take the country through Purgatory for a couple of years to burn off the excesses of the prior administration. But we’ll be back on track by 2014 or 2015.

    The question remains…who IS that Republican? I predict it’s not Romney, not Palin, not Newt. Not Pawlenty either. It’s someone who will emerge from nowhere just as Scott Brown emerged in Mass.

  30. jon baker Says:

    I guess the Dems may be pushed into a position where they will just make new voters to replace the ones they are loosing. And some Republicans may help. This from Numbers USA: “As the leading voices in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) have promised pro-amnesty supporters that a massive amnesty for illegal aliens is sure to pass in 2010. Gutierrez’s intent is to push through this mass amnesty and colossal immigration increases in the first few months of 2010. ”
    Understand that there are those who beleive the real number of illegal aliens in this country may be near 40,000,000 not the 12-20 the government gives out. Also, the last attempt at Amnesty had in it not only chain immigration, but a provision that gave the government only 24 hrs to run a background check on each applicant- otherwise it was automatic approval. In other words- smoke and mirror on any real attempts to see who was being let in. Basically- it would have been a free for all- anyone that stumbled across the border with their cousins papers pretending they had been here for a period of time would be approved.

  31. jon baker Says:

    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/december-15-2009/rep-gutierrez-introduces-mass-amnesty-bill.html

  32. rickl Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    January 26th, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    “a lot of those in the administration, and also a lot of supporters, are the extreme radicals, ala ex- Weathermen, SDS, etc. If they don’t think things are going their way with Obama, they may throw HIM under the bus, and then take things into their own bomb throwing hands. Be careful what you wish for.” physics guy

    “I am in complete agreement with you. I do not think that this level of rage on the left is a good thing at all. Among them are dangerous people who fully believe that the ends justify the means.” neo-neocon

    Yep. It won’t surprise me a bit if something like that happens.

    I don’t worry about the nutcases, their radicalism acts as a self-limiting governor upon their effectiveness.

    I do worry (a bit) about the racial component, there’s a reason why Obama’s approval numbers among non-whites are 90+, and its a variation on the old “he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he’s our son-of-a-bitch”.

    Those groups are not going to let go of Obama easily, the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s are surely going to play the race card, as Obama’s numbers decline even further. And the proper response is not to get defensive, it’s to get right back in the faces of those making racial accusations.

    Absolutely. The fact that the only demographic group where Obama is maintaining stratospheric popularity levels is those people who share the same skin color as him tells you all you need to know about who the real racists are in America today.

  33. Dan Smith Says:

    Krugman is a leftist ideologue who shoots from the hip most of the time. I’m disappointed in Obama for the reasons I had in not voting for him. Krugman deluded himself and I’m not sorry.

  34. Julia NYC Says:

    I’m disappointed in Obama as well. I didn’t vote for him, all of my friends, acquaintances and family did. I got in heated arguments with them, but as we know, Obama won the election. This made me very nervous because the electorate handed the hardest job in the world to someone with no experience, who posessed questionable personal character and a shady background. However, I thought well, ‘my friends and family and acquaintances are not stupid people, perhaps they know something I don’t and it will be alright.’ I am taking no great glee in the fact that they were proven wrong. It completely depresses me. I was hoping Obama would not be as bad as I thought.

  35. Manju Says:

    Krugman has long hated Obama. he invested so much into the VRWC narrative (ie the clinton’s being a victim of it) that he really resented Obama for revelaing to democrats that much of what the VWRC said about them (their brutal brand of politics and electioneering) was true. What infuriated him the most was charges of race-baiting, as the southern-strategy, as practiced by Nixon and Reagan, has long been a pet subject of his.

    Now he was between a rock and a hardplace. Live by the dogwhistle, die by it. conceding this point was simply too hard a pill to swallow. His response was to call Obama supporters Nixonian.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&scp=

  36. Manju Says:

    so krugman’s not disillusioned. he oppossed obmama becuse “among the major Democratic contenders…To the extent that there was a difference, Obama was the least progressive.” (His words). He’s been bashing him for along time now.

    But a second stimulus is his baby. He’s long warned of a double-dip but stopped short of predicting it.

  37. Gray Says:

    The stimulus money provided a lot of money for big bonuses for bankers.

    The rest of it was wasted….

  38. Gray Says:

    The funny thing about “spending freezes”:

    Everytime some impecunious liberal bastard raids the federal budget for handouts to his powerbase among ne’erdowells, race hustlers, crack whores, welfare queens and deadbeats, the Post Office and Park Service get it right in da shorts! POW!

  39. Manju Says:

    “The stimulus money provided a lot of money for big bonuses for bankers.”

    Incorrect. TARP provided money for banker bonuses.

  40. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Gray wrote:The stimulus money provided a lot of money for big bonuses for bankers.

    The rest of it was wasted….

    I think you are confusing your quotes. There is an old navy saying. I spent most of my money on whores and whiskey, the rest I wasted.

  41. Baklava Says:

    Back 4 more Manju? 😛

    Obama is NOT the ‘least progressive’

    He’s radical.

    Answer me this Manju:

    What does it mean to you when Obama talked about taking the oil company profits when he was campaigning for President?

    Do you remember any candidate with that language? Hillary?

    Not knowing who Obama is does not make him the least progressive – it just makes him unknown

  42. Manju Says:

    “Obama is NOT the ‘least progressive’”

    I didn’t say he was the “least progressive.” I said Krugman said that. Krugman never believed in Obama as a progressive and has long disliked him, especially during the primaries….was my point.

  43. Baklava Says:

    And therefore what Paul Krugman has to say is…

    … without perspective.

  44. ConceptJunkie Says:

    So Obama turns out to be what some of us saw from the beginning, and people are starting to realize their mistake in supporting him. All this is well and good, but to repeat the narrative of 1980, we still need someone to play the “Reagan” role.

    Someone above suggested that the well-known Republican names of 2010 won’t be that conservative candidate who is predicted to win in 2012, but that it will be someone who rises up from “nowhere”. The problem is that the guy in the White House now rose up from nowhere. We need people with long track records… Sarah Palin’s got the vision I think, and she’s got a better track record than the Boy King (not that that’s saying much), but Reagan had decades of leadership experience in one form or another and he was a Presidential candidate longer than Obama’s been in politics. All successful presidents had long, proven track records of executive experience. That there is no heir apparent to the conservative “throne” is disheartening to me. “We” know what the country needs. The Tea Partiers know what the country needs. The Republicans, however, are a little late to the game on that. I’m not sure they _still_ have any idea what’s going on and what would win for them. After all, Brown was pretty much ignored by the party. To whom do we turn who can actually give a candidate that _can_ win, but more importantly _should_ win?

    Remember, the country just got done throwing the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, and for good reason. I don’t buy into all the hate for Bush, but on the domestic front, I was no fan of him at all. The Republican Congress was worse. Once again the country seems to be learning that no matter how bad the Republicans are, the Democrats are usually worse, but isn’t it time we had a party that wasn’t “bad”? This “Lesser of Two Evils” Party System is presiding over a slow but increasinglt inevitable decline of the greatest country in the world.

    I keep hearing the logic that a third party can’t do it, and for the most part, I think it’s right, but like a battered wife who keeps returning to the brute, despite her better judgement, how does it benefit conservatives to continue to support and be subsequently betrayed by GOP just because they’re to only game in town?

  45. Manju Says:

    “All successful presidents had long, proven track records of executive experience.”

    Incorrect. Abe Lincoln.

  46. Artfldgr Says:

    You can see them already starting it as it was in Germany (for real). Of course you don’t know what actually happened…You haven’t studied actual facts in detail…So all most really have is what they told you to think about it.

    [Those who went out and got the extra education tend to see what the others don’t…Or were taught not to see – like the residents of the emerald city]

    I said that the good people remain the good people…And that the fringe gets and is all hyped up…[I have tried to explain this as a process. but hux, and others do not want there to be a process, and so no explanation every becomes whole as its ripped apart before they “get it”, and so believe they win a debate by obstinacy to the facts] But the fringe will find out that they are betrayed (as I explained a long time ago)…They are before and after being used to facilitate a change in state

    They will get angry, and want to change it back by force – and I said at that time the people of the revolution become zealots to the counter-revolution.

    The subject your on and don’t even know it, is counter-revolution. And so, you are still ignorant of what they think and have studied in the laboratory of history. (which is why they don’t want you to know history. an open honest history is like an open honest laboratory. All the IP is laid open to be learned from and acted upon. And you certainly wouldn’t want others to know the playbook and valid answers would you? duh)…Without their leaders holding them back and focusing them they will act on their own. When they act on their own, they will afford the state the excuse/impetus it needs to impose a change by force for our own safety. Then those signing statements that put off all elections and give us similar to PROGRESSIVE Germany

    (go ahead look up the dictator and that word and see what comes up – goebells said they copied the ideas from us. they also wrote to us for advice, and got lots of help from many companies, like IBM, TIME, etc. that is these companies already know how to survive and operate in such a system. oh what an advantage they will have. no?)

    We have gone through the first stage—-The point where peoples hopes are taken to unrealistically high levels. Think of this of the heady first years of Germany BEFORE war, before the final solution, before or as the devaluation of currency gave people no choice but to do what the messiah wanted, the time as they just took office and used that as a cover to restructure things. I gave you the very important word and its old definitions more than once.

    The germans had a word for this PROCESS… Gleichschaltung Anyone look it up? [of course not, that would make posts like this SHORTER by being able to reference a common knowledge!!!! If ya want these things shorter, you have to help by learning] Or did they just stop at the old definitions I put as a teaser the second time (I put up its meaning the first time. but like my point on sociopath in March 2008, I am and was way too far ahead).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung —[The link, though its wiki, may not be considered “work safe” since it is about Nazi doctrines. The page has the flag of Germany at that time. a communist flag in red, that puts their symbol in the same place, the reverse swastika]

    Gleichschaltung: meaning “coordination”, “making the same”, “bringing into line”, is a Nazi term for the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce.

    Does any one else want to look into their play book? Then learn history, as history is their laboratory and textbook….Its why obama is considered to be a man who studied history!!! He didn’t study it for FACTS and DATES and NAMES….He studied it for process, where facts, dates, and names matter not!!!!!

    Sheesh.. [are you coming up to speed yet hux?] They don’t have to BE nazi’s to copy and borrow the parts of the process…Do they? And by letting the process happen in other places first, they get to see the experiments and results by learning DETAILED history, something they deny you. [of course we wont let the people have ideas, ideas are more dangerous than guns and we don’t let them have that, do we? Stalin paraphrased]

    The historian Richard J. Evans offered the term “forcible-coordination” in his most recent work on Nazi Germany.

    What you see as bribes, graft and games… I see as a way to force different people in the state in power positions to comply. the carrot and stick. Be with us, and prosper, otherwise we will destroy you. (surprise surprise, that’s exactly what lenin said to do in that quote I put up! fancy progressives, socialists, and communists following marx, lenin and such.. amazing isnt it?)

    The process right now is to make the others see the potentials. And this process of corruption is a ratchet; it only allows movement in one direction
    Hence their term to describe it and name it: Gleichschaltung

    One goal of this policy was to eliminate individualism by forcing everyone to adhere to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible using an invasive police force.

    In germany it was called right thinking, in russia it was having a party mind, in the US its being politically correct. Of course to people who think that thoughts are everything and reality is secondary (even if they don’t conciously believe it but have taken it in), its easy to think that feminisms PC, is not what it is. just as its easy to see abortions planned parenthood started by a progressive eugenicist who hitlers people wrote to her people for advice and called it the negro project… would not be what it was always.

    They just changed the labels.. Communism becomes progressivism…Communist totalitarian becomes communitarian…Progressive steals the label of liberal,…liberals move to libertarian…

    The period from 1933 to around 1937 was characterized by the systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially influence people, such as trade unions and political parties. Those critical of Hitler’s agenda, especially his close ties with industry, were suppressed, intimidated or permanently silenced. The regime also assailed the influence of the churches, for example by instituting the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs under Hanns Kerrl. Organizations that the administration could not eliminate, such as the education system, came under its direct control.
    Nationalizing banks… cant silence them, ya need them
    Tea partiers, silence them
    Use the unions better than opposing them
    (so that’s an improvement from history that others would use as a difference to assert difference)

    They don’t have the power yet to do the things they want to do….I mean if they stood out, said what they were, unfurled a read banner an yelled for totalitarian control of your life… Would you follow? So naturally, to expect that and to deny everything else is silly….They will never come riding in on a banner that honestly describes the future
    We wont help them.

    ….The times are different the people are different and the moves are variations on a theme so they seem different. …But there is only one goal for statists… so the end is not different. We are starting to enter the second stage….Where the highly emotional people who have been cultured that way, start to feel cheated. Feeling cheated has managed to keep African Americans from participating and claiming their share as they sit feeling owed (as Thomas sowell explained).

    Right now, leftist leaders are starting to foment the fringe extreme useful idiots…..By NOT calming them down and focusing them….You can see it. They (leaders of the left) are now starting to talk down Obama. …They are starting to really inflame those same emotional people that they moved to put him into office. They are their army and they will get them to play both sides against themselves.

    I said he may or may not be the one at the helm at this final game play….It will either be he that calms the seas of malcontent..
    Or someone else will pop up and do it….But it’s coming…

    [edited for length by neo-neocon]

  47. Thomass Says:

    Well, in the end the democrats are paying a sorta karma price for encouraging and/or tolerating so many wackos in their ranks.

    They have unrealistic expectations of what a lefty president can do in a center right free market country.

    It’s related to having a lot of unrealistic opinions about… a lot of stuff… that no one ever challenges them on because usually it leads them to bash republicans. Sloppy thought was not discouraged.

  48. Obloodyhell Says:

    > “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

    But what’s really, really amusing is that, if you had him detail the reasons why he is an idiot, they would all be wrong

    It’s not like these fools are Getting Any Clue — they still support the same idiotic ideas they did before — they just don’t grasp that They Are Wrong All Around.

    So said moron won’t support anything that works, or anything that will “sell” to the public as a whole. No, he’ll continue to push the same moronic agenda which has no chance of EVER winning, and then get pissed at THAT poor schlub politician for failing to get THAT agenda passed.

    I’d feel sorry for Obama except that he only won by appealing to these rabidly liberal nitwits.

  49. Obloodyhell Says:

    Krugman marks himself to be the Keynesian idiot everyone who grasps the stupidity of Keynesianism already knew he was.

    He actually imagines that government spending works to fix an economy… the man is old enough to have observed the idiocy of this concept in person in the 70s, and yet “he still believes”!!

    If you want to grasp the competence of anyone who is an economist, ask them what they think of Keynes. Before the seventies you could believe rationally that Keynes was right (though there was adequate evidence to the contrary)… after the seventies, though, you HAD to be a total moron to continue to follow it.

  50. vanderleun Says:

    “Anyone look it up? [of course not, that would make posts like this SHORTER by being able to reference a common knowledge!!!! If ya want these things shorter, you have to help by learning]”

    Hey! You! I’m listening but enough of the carping already. Enough with the “Sie folgen meinen Aufträgen und Sie sind glücklich, so zu tun.”

    Okay? Quit whining and get on with it. I like your mind but you do need an attitude adjustment and a roil change.

  51. vanderleun Says:

    As just to show you, I took a bit of that and cleaned it up and posted it at my place.

    Not everybody’s an enemy and almost nobody here except for those “on a troll” are dumb. Just give the news please.

  52. Antoine Waldrep Says:

    Join Tea Party Patriots the weekend of Feb. 25 -27 in Phoenix

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge