In response to:

Richard Cohen Explains Conservatives

Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 10:48 AM
To add another example: Paul Krugman, economics writer for the NYT, announced yesterday that he was flattered to have his name raised as the next Treasury Secretary, but would decline. This suggests two possibilities. First, Krugman is so completely delusional that he believes himself qualified for that job. He has demonstrated again and again that his smug ideas are simply rehashes of Leftist economics that have failed every time they are tried in real life. Second, the Obama administration is so completely delusional that it thinks Krugman has a clue, when he's just another populist dreamer. Maybe they were looking for a drop-in replacement for Geithner.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 11:05 AM
This is just another example of the right wing doing exactly what Prager complains about in the left, creating a straw man. Krugman declined and specifically indicated he did not feel he would be good at it. But a right winger suggests this is what a liberal thinks. (Of course, Krugman actually is perfectly well qualified)

Second, it was NOT the Obama administration who floated Krugman's name.
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:10 PM
1) We will never agree that Krugman is qualified to direct the economy of the US. Again, his writings reek of failed progressive policies and discredited data.

2) I don't suggest anything about "what a liberal thinks"; our society and government are so rife with liberal thought that we need not speculate.

2) If the Obama administration floated his name, it confirms my statement about its competence. If Krugman floated his own name, it confirms my statement about him, and exonerates the Obama administration unless they appoint a Krugman clone.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:32 PM
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 12:36 PM
Yet Krugman did not float his own name. Nor did the Obama administration. Your assertion that he thought he was qualified is quite apparent and an example of exactly what I described...the conservative tendency to create straw men. In this case its actually funny because Krugman actually said he did NOT think he would be a good Treasury secretary.

You can't pretend you do not suggest what a liberal thinks right after you have said "First, Krugman is so completely delusional that he believes himself qualified for that job."

And finally, I was not aware that a constitutional qualification for Treasury is " must agree with Stuart95" Now that I know, I guess he must not be qualified after all......
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:24 PM
Jack, You are reiterating the idea that liberals cannot make an argument without strawmen. Here are your strawmen:

1) I never said Krugman floated his own name.

2) I said it's a "possibility" that he considers himself qualified.

3) Krugman said he would not be a good manager, implying - to me, Jack - that he believes himself totally qualified but doesn't want to bother with the administration of the department.

4) Again, I listed delusion as a possible reason for Krugman's name appearing.

5) I've re-read my posts and nowhere did I say my approval is needed for appointing a cabinet secretary. I think that is the job of the Senate.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:00 PM
Stuart, get real now.

Here's the key to your diversion. You did not reference approval, you referenced "qualified" and indicated that thinking Krugman being qualified would be a delusion. I simply noted that agreeing with you is not a qualification for the post, with which, in retrospect, you now agree.

Likewise you suggest that the fact his name was in play might show that the Obama administration thought Krugman has a clue. Absent any statement from the Obama administration about Krugman, you are stepping and assigning a belief to them which they do not hold.


Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:02 PM
ANd finally Stuart, one cannot escape responsibility by arguing about "possibilities," because you ignored the most likely possibilities, i.e. that you have no idea what Krugman or the Whitehouse thought.
Stuart95 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 4:18 PM
By saying "in retrospect" you imply that you have convinced me that my approval is indeed not necessary for cabinet confirmation. Semi-careful reading of my posts, of course, shows that I never said nor implied that it was.

And I assigned beliefs to no one. I was speculating as to who might have floated Krugman's name - and after all these subsequent posts, we are closer to death but not illumination.

But you, Jack, have never refuted my assertion - nay, belief - that Krugman's economic ideas have never worked and that he uses his own data when necessary. This fact-free forensic technique is what drives conservatives mad.
bwo_rei Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 6:33 PM
Game, set and match to Stuart. Man, I love watching libs squirm!
On the last day of 2012, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen inadvertently clarified two huge matters regarding the left.

The first was the ignorance about conservatives and conservatism that permeates the left. The second was the primary reason decent people identify with the left: the effective caricaturing and demonizing of the right. Were it not for caricature and demonization, most otherwise intelligent and decent people would not be on the left.

This is what Cohen wrote in his column, "Republicans Adrift:"

"It is conservatism that is both intellectually exhausted and nearly indefensible. It is the movement of the ideologically ossified,...