In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Policy and the Personal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/krugman-policy-and-the-personal.html), Krugman is claiming that this election is "about the rich versus the rest" and that the media is to blame for failing to examine whether Obama or Romney is telling the truth.
Asking 1) why shouldn't Obama "run a campaign based on . . . substance and leave Mr. Romney’s personal history alone?" and 2) "How are voters supposed to know who’s telling the truth?", Krugman responds to his own questons by stating:
"Perhaps in a better world we could count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims. In this world, however, most voters get their news from short snippets on TV, which almost never contain substantive policy analysis. The print media do offer analysis pieces — but these pieces, out of a desire to seem 'balanced,' all too often simply repeat the he-said-she-said of political speeches."
Fascinating. We can't trust the liberal US media, which managed to ignore Obama's links to Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, among others, in 2008, to cut through the political fog.
And the print media is consumed with a desire to remain "balanced"? Has Krugman had a look at the left-skewed stances being taken on the op-ed page of his own newspaper? Or perhaps they are simply not sufficiently leftist for Paul?
But let's talk turkey. As observed in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/gail-collins-mitts-political-vortex-is.html), the Obama campaign is questioning when Romney left Bain Capital. However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails these allegations:
"As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it.
. . . .
Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the 'key investment professionals' who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, 'the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.'
. . . .
The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."
Although "tempted" to award the Obama campaign's contentions four pinochios, Kessler and his team decided to give the Democrats "only" three.
So why is Obama attacking Romney instead of dealing with economic substance, and why is Krugman attacking the media? Answer: Because the US economy is not going to improve before November, and Obama can no longer blame Bush.
Axelrod & Co. have obviously decided that Obama has no alternative.
Everything is sadly funny and amusingly absurd. Something tells me that Krugman, Oprah, Clooney and countless other Obama's promoters are insanely rich. Yes, this election is about which rich will sleep in the guest room of the White House next four years, poke fun at those rich who have to wait and laugh at the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I am voting.
I meant of course I am NOT voting.
ReplyDelete