GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

My Nephew Takes on Paul Krugman . . .

by

. . . and wins.

When I returned to my Dad’s after a day with my one of my younger brothers, his son and daughters, my blogging nephew (the second son of my older brother) was frantically typing away on his grandpa’s (the PatriotFatherWest) laptop.  He told me he was taking issue with Paul Krugman’s latest column.

As my nephew blogged, I picked up the New York Times from the kitchen table and read the column. To take issue with this fact-free attempt to label Republicans would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel. But, to do so with well-directed sarcasm is quite a gift. And that’s how my nephew did it, observing:

As for the basis of your entire column that the Republican party has become the “party of stupid,” it is just sophomoric and pointless. Your column didn’t express any new information or perspective, it just reiterated old liberal talking points that you have recylced and reused in each of your past columns.

Mitchell nails it. Instead of showing exactly how the Republican energy policy is merely a push from more drilling with no new ideas, Krugman, like some angry left-winger responding to one of our posts, digresses from the issue at hand and recycles the standard liberal criticism of the president. He lied us into war in Iraq! He (along with his minions and supporters) questioned the patriotism of those who disagreed with him! He screwed up the response to Hurricane Katrina!

Oh and his supporters worshipped him as some kind of Great Leader!  Um, what do any of those accusations have to do with Republican energy policy, the ostensible subject of the column?

Had Krugman bothered to familiarize himself with McCain’s energy policy — or that of any Republican putting forward policies to promote exploration for and development of new sources of energy before he wrote his anti-Republican rant? Or did he just assume it was “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now!” because that policy fit his stereotype of a party beholden to the oil industry?

Seems, just like all too many on the left today, Krugman would rather insult Republicans than understand our ideas.

As my nephew puts it:

If I wanted a rehash of liberal views on the last eight years, I could have watched a Michael Moore film or read the Daily Kos or picked up a kilo of Mary Jane and seen what came to me.

It seems that for all his economic education, Paul Krugman has become little more than an angry left-wing blogger but with a platform on (what once was) our nation’s most prestigious newspaper.

Even an incoming college freshman can see that. If you don’t believe me, just check out his post.

Comments

  2. Paul Krugman remains as one of the preeminent economists in the world today. He notes that the reasons for the Iraq war were fraudulent. Indeed, that war effectively took out one-third of the world’s oil reserves, and incidentally Exxon-Mobil became the world’s biggest company (sales revenues).

    Supply of oil is unstable, while demand is predictably growing, so prices rise. The only real solution is providing, albeit partial, substitutes for oil and other non-renewable resources…such as new housing strategies so that people don’t need to travel as far, or information technologies, etc.

    Finding and drilling new reserves is a nonsense …. use them now and they will not be available for the future. Drill in maybe 20 years when technology will be superior and environmental hazard reduced. Krugman’s point is valid…drilling is not a solution to a complicated problem that can only be solved with life style changes.

  3. Um, Dennis, did you even read Krugman’s column? He was dismissing Republican energy policy based on his assumption it was entirely based on drilling. He didn’t bother to detail any Republican policy.

    If he’s such a preeminent economist (as you claim), why didn’t he then look at the particular points of the various GOP policies and analyze them instead of delivering a broadside against the president and his party?

    As to drilling, the technology already has improved such that environmental hazard has been reduced. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “deep-sea U.S. oil rigs [in the Gulf of Mexico] withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.“

  4. Dennis has it ass-backwards. We need to drill now so we have a stable supply of fuel to bridge us over the next 20 years while alternatives are developed. And drilling for oil can already be done in an environmentally benign manner. Transporting oil in tankers (i.e. importing it) is more hazardous that extracting it.

    Second, the Democrats want to increase our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars supposedly to create jobs by government “investment.” Opening up domestic reserves to drilling and production will create thousands of jobs without raising the deficit.

    Drilling is not the only solution, which is why Republicans are pursuing an “All of the Above” strategy of drilling + conservation + alternative fuel development. It’s common sense.

  5. Paul Krugman remains as one of the preeminent economists in the world today

    According to whom? Seriously. Has the man every been right about anything, ever?

    He notes that the reasons for the Iraq war were fraudulent.

    Case in point. There are to date, five separate domestic bipartisan and nonpartisan investigations, ALL of which disagree with him, and none of which support him in that.

    Holy cow your post is just one gigantic piece of crap on top of another!

    One of the major reasons demand on energy sources have increased so much is the rapid spread of computers and tech devices throughout the country and around the world. Billions of computers and devices, not only requiring massive amounts of energy, but, I might remind you, made from petroleum products. I suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and save the Earth, and reduce America’s energy consumption by never ever getting on the internet ever, ever, EVER again.

  6. I think the “party of stupid” label has merit, but not for the reasons Krugman says.

    Every time Republicans “compromise” to Democrats, they come out on the losing side. It happened on the Amnesty Bill, it happened with the Gang of 14 (and gee, what stupid Republican do both of those debacles have in common?), and most recently with the Gang of 10, who managed to craft a bill that guarantees tax increases and alternative-fuel boondoggles in return for an empty promise of more drilling… maybe, if it isn’t blocked by the EPA and liberal judges (which it would be).

    Just like the Amnesty Bill guaranteed what the Democrats wanted (Amnesty and massive numbers of uneducated third world voters) in return for an empty promise that part of the border might become slightly less porous.

    On the Gang of 14, Democrats got to keep the filibuster and Republicans got a grand total of 3 judges confirmed… with more than 30 vacancies on the Federal Bench.

    Come to think of it, that Mortgage Bill was a major Democrat victory too… nothing but a massive bail-out for the economically irresponsible; Democrat philosophy in a nutshell.

    So, yeah, I got to agree with the whole “Party of Stupid” thing.

  7. #2 – Dennis – Your comments are so bizarre that I thought you were writing them as a form of sarcasm or satire.

    Paul Krugman remains as one of the preeminent economists in the world today.

    Oh, really? What is his work in economics? What prize-winning theories has he founded? I seem to remember that Krugman was one of the advisors of Enron. Yeah, that turned out well.

    the reasons for the Iraq war were fraudulent

    Oh really? On what planet? The reasons for the Iraq war were:
    (1) Saddam Hussein defying the U.N. and stalling its weapons inspectors,
    (2) Saddam’s harboring of terrorists, such as Abu Nidal and (after the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001) certain al Qaeda figures such as Zarqawi, and
    (3) Saddam’s past genocides on his own people / humanitarian.
    Which of those, pray tell, was fraudulent? Oh – perhaps you are referring to the rhetoric of Democrats such as Jay Rockefeller, Dennis, who promised definitively that we would find WMD in Iraq. Bush didn’t.

    Finding and drilling new reserves is a nonsense

    Translation: New drilling is exactly what we should be doing.

  8. #2 – Dennis – Your comments are sufficiently bizarre that I thought you were writing them as a form of sarcasm or satire.

    Paul Krugman remains as one of the preeminent economists in the world today.

    Oh, really? What is his work in economics? What prize-winning theories has he founded? I seem to remember that Krugman was one of the advisors of Enron. Yeah, that turned out well.

    the reasons for the Iraq war were fraudulent

    Oh really? On what planet? The reasons for the Iraq war were:
    (1) Saddam Hussein defying the U.N. and stalling its weapons inspectors,
    (2) Saddam’s harboring of terrorists, such as Abu Nidal and (after the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001) certain al Qaeda figures such as Zarqawi, and
    (3) Saddam’s past genocides on his own people / humanitarian.
    Which of those, pray tell, was fraudulent? Oh – perhaps you are referring to the rhetoric of Democrats such as Jay Rockefeller, Dennis, who promised definitively that we would find WMD in Iraq. Bush didn’t.

    Finding and drilling new reserves is a nonsense

    Translation: New drilling is exactly what we should be doing.

  10. My 17 year old son just made a compelling argument for me not throwing away my vote this fall.

    I had been prepared to vote for Cynthia McKinney, reasoning that my vote was worthless anyway, and so I’d give a worthless vote to a worthless person. But my son argued, instead of throwing my vote away completely, why not write in who I really think should be president. And maybe if enough people did the same… reject the party’s nominees and vote for who I really would want as president… maybe it would send a message. Probably not, but at least I would be doing my civic duty as an individual to vote for whoever I thought would make the best president.

  11. Dennis: in 20 years, when we may have viable alternatives to oil, why would we want to drill for it? The point is that we need the oil now and we’ll need it for the foreseeable future.

    I’m waiting for a liberal leader to sell us on the lifestyle changes we’d really need to make a material difference. Hint: these changes don’t involve tire gauges and show trials for oil company execs.

    Housing strategies? What does that mean? Does it involve moving to Marin county? Does it involve closing the border to avoid further exacerbating California’s current water/energy woes? Does it mean razing square miles of suburbs and pushing people off their land (Grapes of Wrath style) and forcing them into the cities?

    All: Don’t be too hard on poor old Paul. Krugman’s doing his part to reduce his carbon footprint: he’s turned down his already low-wattage brain to save energy. Cheers, Paul!

  12. #2 – Dennis – Your comments are sufficiently bizarre that I thought you were writing them as a form of sarcasm or satire.

    Paul Krugman remains as one of the preeminent economists in the world today.

    Oh, really? What is his work in economics? What prize-winning theories has he founded? I seem to remember that Krugman was one of the advisors of Enron. Yeah, that was ‘preeminent’.

    the reasons for the Iraq war were fraudulent

    Oh really? On what planet? The reasons for the Iraq war offered at the time were:
    (1) Saddam Hussein defying the U.N. and stalling its weapons inspectors,
    (2) Saddam’s harboring of terrorists, such as Abu Nidal and (after the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001) certain al Qaeda figures such as Zarqawi, and
    (3) Saddam’s past genocides on his own people / humanitarian.
    Which of those, pray tell, was fraudulent? Oh – perhaps you are referring to the rhetoric of Democrats such as Jay Rockefeller, Dennis, who promised definitively that we would find WMD in Iraq. Bush didn’t.

    Finding and drilling new reserves is a nonsense

    Translation: New drilling is exactly what we should be doing.

  13. Rockefeller Skank also made claims about Saddam’s nuclear program that went WAAAY beyond anything the administration or any Republican said….yet he would’t allow his own statements to be part of the report his partisan commitee hacked up in a full on attempt to paint the adminstration as liars (but which ended up further vindicating them).

  15. “it is just sophomoric and pointless. Your column didn’t express any new information or perspective, it just reiterated old liberal talking points that you have recylced and reused”

    Substitute psuedo-conservative in place of liberal and you have a perfect description of gaypatriot.net.

  18. GP West: PLEASE stop plugging your nephew’s blog via gaypatriot. Allow him to develop his own blogging talents independently–much as you did. Given his talents, his online following will increase just fine without a shameless plug from his uncle.

  20. McCain said, “Drill here! Drill now!” How is stating that your guy said it a rehashing of liberal bias against the Republican energy policy? It is simply a fact. Since that was the main talking point at the time it was said, it must also be the cornerstone of the Republican energy policy. Republicans don’t have anything new. They just have the same old rhetoric they’ve been pushing for years: fear and the status-quo.

    Your guys will very likely lose in November. Here’s why: you’re team had over a decade of control and failed to address most of the problems the country faces. Your guys were too focused on making sure that homosexuals couldn’t get married and starting the wrong war to worry about solving real problems. You and your guys hate taxes and government so much, yet you all had no problems borrowing money to engage in pointless war without end (If that’s not big government, I don’t know what is.). For example, do you like the crumbling infrastructure of the US or the lack of focus on future growth? Certainly it must be more important to spread democracy in the Middle East (like that’s working…not) than it is to take care of America. How patriotic!

    So, will you be offering anything new or just the same old fear and status-quo stance?

    Oh, the same old same old. That’s what I thought.

  21. #4 – Unfortunately the U.S.A. has only about 3% of the world’s oil – we cannot drill ourselves out of dependence on foreign oil. It takes years for an oil field to go from exploration to production and the potential of these “new” off-shore drilling areas is considered insignificant. Geologically speaking, we simply don’t have the resource in our country to create a “stable” supply of oil. All the wishing (oil wells) in the world, plus democrat or republican politics cannot change that.

    There are formerly economically played-out oil fields, oil shale, coal and other fossil fuel alternatives, but the best way to go is an all-out effort to develop new energy resources, including nuclear, to meet our needs and insure our independence.

    Environmental concerns are important, but beside the issue. Drilling is not a solution.

  25. Republicans don’t have anything new. They just have the same old rhetoric they’ve been pushing for years: fear and the status-quo.

    Which is why, of course, Republicans are pushing for more exploration, more drilling, and more crude oil being supplied from American sources….and Democrats are engaging in environmental fearmongering against drilling and nuclear power and are insisting that they will block anything and everything that involves increasing this country’s domestic supply of petroleum or energy from nuclear — while, at the same time, blocking plans for renewable resources like wind farms because they obstruct the views from Democrats’ beach houses and yachts.

    The Democrat Party has been blocking nuclear, blocking oil exploration, blocking anything that would make this country more independent, and doing so for over thirty years. In the interim, all that has done is increase the country’s dependence on foreign oil, while Democrats have poured literally billions of dollars into “renewable energy” pipe dreams that ignore the basic laws of common sense, economics, and physics.

  28. It is hilarious, V the K.

    If you actually showed most Americans what the Canadian system looks like, in which individuals are routinely denied care by the government with no recourse, in which people have to wait months for care, and whose private-insurance ban was ruled by its own courts to subject people to unnecessary pain and suffering, it would never work.

    The biggest lie that Krugman and his Democrat ilk pull is that nationalized health care would eliminate the need for employer-sponsored health care. Tell that to any company who has employees in Canada, the UK, France, or Germany, and they will tell you that people won’t come to work for them if they do not provide private health insurance — because their employees don’t want to be dependent on government care.

    Hence Krugman and his ilk spin these sort of stories. But what they don’t tell you is that, by virtually all estimates, their own Medicare system is so incompetently run that 60 billion dollars annually vanish from it into the pockets of criminals.

  29. This blog never ceases to amaze me. You want Krugman to familiarize himself with McCain’s energy policy, but you can’t even see that this blog has no place in the GOP…if you would familiarize yourself with McCain’s thinking on gays and the gop: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15406&R=13BAD2594C

    There is no room for you according to McCain. And you masochistically conyinue to carry water for him. Funny stuff.

  30. Um, Jimmy, you know not of what you speak. How do you reach the conclusion that mcCain finds no room for us in the GOP.

    You don’t even address the point of the post.

    Seems you would rather attack you fictionalized version of the GOP than engage.

  31. It apparent jimmy is one of those who can’t separate a discussion of energy policy (or any other issue) from his sexual proclivities. For some of us, there’s a lot more going on above the neckline than below the waistline. Sadly, jimmy is not such a person.