Where in the world have they taken Paul Krugman?


Will some honest broker find out: Good God, this is just awful.

Where have they taken the real Paul Krugman? Could someone please find out?
KRUGMAN (8/30/12): I spent a large part of the Bush years contending, at first almost alone, against the conventional wisdom that, even if you didn’t like his policies, Bush was a bluff, honest guy. In truth he was deeply dishonest—and all it took to see that was a look at his economic proposals and how he sold them. It was partly because I had reached a judgment on economics that I was able to see the very similar pattern in the selling of the Iraq war, and conclude—really really almost alone, at least in the pages of major newspapers—that we were being misled into invading another country.

Why did Bush have this reputation for honesty? Because he seemed like a nice, gregarious guy, and because most pundits don’t do actual policy analysis. And boy, did I get savagely and personally attacked for pointing out the obvious. It really wasn’t until Katrina that the obvious went mainstream.
Good God.

George Bush didn't have a reputation for honesty “because he seemed like a nice, gregarious guy, and because most pundits don’t do actual policy analysis.” He had a reputation for honesty because that aligned with the prevailing script, which was already firmly in place.

In the press corps’ prevailing script, Clinton, Clinton and Gore were the world’s biggest liars. Anyone who ran against them had to be typecast as honest.

In short, the ideological fix was already in. Bush was presented the way he was because he wasn’t Bill Clinton.

(Everyone who ran against Clinton and Gore was presented as strikingly honest. In 1996, Candidate Dole was presented as the high character candidate, even when he was running remarkably dishonest ads against Steve Forbes in New Hampshire. Reason: He wasn't Bill Clinton! In the novel which drove that campaign, Bill Clinton had character problems! Dole was out of touch!)

There’s no way on earth the real Paul Krugman typed the passage we have highlighted. Where in the world have they taken Paul Krugman?

Will some honest broker find out?

The real Paul Krugman knows about script: For evidence, just click here.


  1. On a related note, Charles Blow tweets, apparently without irony:

    "Ppl keep fact checking, the campaigns — and much of the public — keep ignoring it. We are sliding down a slippery slope.."

    1. More Charles Blow. at approximately 8:40pm ET:

      "I'm sorry, I dosed off and bumped my head on my laptop. What did I miss? #BetterthanAmbien #RNC #Tampa"

  2. Bob,
    I am a liberal, but because of the NYTimes, Dowd, Collins, O'Donnell, Maddow, Blow, Dionne and other liberal media personas I'm gonna vote for Romney and other (lying sacks of shit) republican scumbags.
    Do not call them racists. Do not criticize them. You risk hurting their feelings and may alienate them and their acolytes.
    Brother, some advice: Get wisdom, get knowledge and understanding. Those three are given free by the maker.

  3. And in other New York Times offerings, on top of the front page right now, promoting a live video:

    Frank Bruni and Charles M. Blow debate whether Republicans are waging a war on women

  4. Chill out, Howler Staff. Krugman was describing a script, just not the one you have decided -- through diligent analysis -- is the correct one. Wailing about Krugman changelings is not your forte, just as narrative analysis is not Krugman's. We'd prefer he stick to economics and numbers. We'd prefer you moderate and attenuate your reactions as commensurate with the infractions.

    In short: getting the wrong script is not tantamount to ignoring the fact that there is a script.

    1. I am forced to moderate my own admonition a bit. On Krugman's blog, he just promulgated the "Al Gore liar" meme explicitly. Uh-oh.

  5. Jeez, this was hardly worth a "good God." It's a different way of describing the script, based on the justifications used. There's no question those justifications were front and center.

  6. Krugman has earned the right to lick his wounds.
    After all, has a websight dedicated to refute every word he writes.

    And most of the contributors still haven't figured out George W. is a moron.

    Hell, the entire Romney team knows it, as does the RNC.

  7. Sounds to me like The Howler is writing it's own script and denigrating all who would disagree. Sound familiar?

  8. tl;dr

    My Hero Krugman can never be wrong about anything. He does all my thinking for me.

    If Krugman says something idiotic and unjustifiable, like "Why did Bush have this reputation for honesty? Because he seemed like a nice, gregarious guy, and because most pundits don’t do actual policy analysis" -- something for which Krugman provides no evidence, something which obscures what really happened, and something which is contradicted by the very obvious course of events -- Krugman still can't be wrong. He must just be "describing a different script."

    You must never say Krugman is wrong about anything! My brain won't permit it.

    1. This last, "ha! I will reduce the views of those I disagree with to a one note generalization" is trite and boring. Make a case or cut the junior high antics.

    2. The case?

      The case is what's absent from your comment Greg... and from Krugman's.

      "Krugman provides no evidence, obscures what really happened, and is contradicted by the very obvious course of events" -- you might want to try contradicting that for a start if you have anything other than your own kindergarten whines.

    3. Ok, here is a sentence of Krugman's that Somerby highlighted then followed by "Good God."

      "Why did Bush have this reputation for honesty? Because he seemed like a nice, gregarious guy, and because most pundits don’t do actual policy analysis."

      Which seems to me to be exactly what Somerby has been complaining about for 13 years.