Follow by Email

Monday, August 1, 2016

Paul Krugman, "Worthy of Our Contempt": The "Real Hillary"

Okay, I agree with Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Worthy of Our Contempt," that rational Republicans, or rational voters of any "denomination," should not be supporting Trump. His election could indeed lead to "irretrievable disaster." On the other hand, Krugman also uses this opportunity to suck up to Hillary:

"[W]hile we won’t know about a Clinton presidency until or unless it happens, I find much to admire in the real Hillary, who is nothing like the caricature."

Ah yes, the "real Hillary." Perhaps Krugman would care to inform us with whom she has been sharing her bed for the past decade? Bill, who repeatedly flew on the Lolita Express? I don't think so.

And while he's at it, perhaps Krugman would care to explain his admiration for the foundation established by Hillary, which has been roping in donations of millions of dollars from some of world's most oppressive regimes, including some that subjugate women.

And maybe Krugman would care to justify how Hillary lied to the parents of the victims of the Benghazi attack, claiming it was all on account of the video.

And then there was that basement home server, evidencing her desire to hide her correspondence at the expense of national security. (The Washington Post yesterday gave her four Pinocchios for telling Chris Wallace that "Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.")

Or maybe he simply admires how Hillary always backed her "husband" to the hilt, notwithstanding charges of rape.

Sorry, Paul, both candidates stink.


  1. The news is the absence of news when talking points dominate media. Interesting & depressing that the ONLY coverage of Chris Wallace's interview (good questions) of HRC on Fox News Sunday is from ...Fox News:

    "...“I think that it's fair for Americans to have questions,” Clinton said, in an interview taped Saturday. “Every time I run for an office, though, oh my goodness, all of these caricatures come out of nowhere. ..."

    [of course, not as if this new Amerika will need economists more than language police. Krugman has obviously been retrained.]

    "What happened to my party?"

    July 31, 2016 By JOEL KOTKIN

    "...For virtually all of my adult life, I have been a registered Democrat. But as the party has abandoned critical commitments to color-blind racial equality, upward mobility and economic growth, I have moved on to become a registered independent. This makes me part of the fastest-growing “party” in America – the politically homeless.
    Liberals now constitute roughly three in five Democrats, a share twice as large as in 1992, when we elected the first Clinton. Increasingly, liberals, or progressives, are at best ambivalent about economic growth, particularly in such blue-collar fields as fossil fuel energy, manufacturing, agribusiness and suburban homebuilding. Bill Galston, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton, notes that party platform “is truly remarkable – for example, its near-silence on economic growth.” ...

    Suspicious of broad-based economic growth’s impact on the environment, they logically favor redistribution of wealth over seriously growing the pie – in effect, contradicting nearly a half-century of mainstream Democratic thinking. ...
    The inherent contradiction between the Bernie faction’s populism and Hillary’s crony capitalism could rile party politics in the coming years. The growth delivered by Obama’s economic policies has been wonderful for the investor class but not very good for a rapidly proleterianized middle and working class. How Hillary tries to appease the Left populists while maintaining her financial backers may provide a true test of her political skills. ..."

    2016 could be remembered as the year when CorrectWordsMatter, endless "conversations" on pronouns.

    Let the Voter Intimidation Games begin.

    1. "Who's Worse: Trump's Neo-Nazis or Clinton's Press?"
      By Andrew Klavan July 31, 2016

      "In this Rodan-vs-Godzilla election, the best I can hope for is to see my enemies discomfited before I watch my country get destroyed. So the question is not: which candidate do I like better, the man who has never read the Constitution, or the woman who has read it and swears to destroy it? The question is: which group of evil thugs would I prefer to watch reeling in shock and horror as the results come in? Who is worse and more deserving of punishment: the white supremacist, anti-semitic neo-Nazis of the alt-Right who spew their inner filth at anyone who attacks their hero Trump, or Scott Pelley, David Muir, Wolf Blitzer, Dean Baquet and the rest of the leftist news media who spew their pro-Hillary lies at the dwindling audiences willing to listen to and believe them?

      The answer seems obvious: the journalists are worse than the neo-Nazis. ..."


    words matter