Krugman: The Great Degrader

[ProSense]

The Great Degrader

I’ve been focused on economic policy lately, so I sort of missed the big push to rehabilitate Bush’s image; also, as a premature anti-Bushist who pointed out how terrible a president he was back when everyone else was praising him as a Great Leader, I’m kind of worn out on the subject.

But it does need to be said: he was a terrible president, arguably the worst ever, and not just for the reasons many others are pointing out.

From what I’ve read, most of the pushback against revisionism focuses on just how bad Bush’s policies were, from the disaster in Iraq to the way he destroyed FEMA, from the way he squandered a budget surplus to the way he drove up Medicare’s costs. And all of that is fair.

But I think there was something even bigger, in some ways, than his policy failures: Bush brought an unprecedented level of systematic dishonesty to American political life, and we may never recover.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/the-great-degrader/

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R -- and somebody please tell President Obama

[liberalmike27]

39. What I Hate

About this and generally looking at the Bush administration as some sort of point of demarcation where it all went to sheit, is that in truth I think we all know the worst things happened way back during Reagan, perhaps some during Nixon, and even McCarthyism and its failure represented a shift in thinking, a group beginning to look at gains by lower-level working Americans as Communist.

Certainly if we're going to blame anyone, let's go with Reagan. I think a lot of people wanted to blame Bush because they didn't want to wrap Clinton into that period. But we all know he went along with Welfare "reform." It's always a bad thing, when Republicans use the word "reform," because they'll come as close to truncating whatever goes with the word as possible, it essentially means "cut."

Clinton also favored us with banking "reform," (again) and signed it into law. I think the congress could have and did have enough votes to override his veto, but he should have made some noise, pounded the bully-pulpit with that one. Clinton also kept ushering in the trade-agreements. Yep, remember how when GHW Bush tried to get them passed, and we said NOOOOOO, but when Clinton was elected, all of the "democrats can do no wrong," crowd jumped on board and said "OK, if Billy C. says it, it must be OK. Here we are now, down the line, 35 million jobs away, debt growing for not collecting the taxes those good jobs once paid, path to the American Dream now overgrown and nearly impassable for a lot of folks who used to try to work their way to the top in these jobs.

So in hating Bush, let us not forget all of the stepping stones of the last 35 years, and sadly the fact that Obama is looking ever more like just another stone, in a long path of destruction, let us not forget the fact that it is, it was, it will always be a slow movement. We've gone from the New Deal, to the Raw Deal now, all the rift of issues once conquered are now back in full, wage theft, joblessness, low pay, no power for workers. A sixth of us are in or near poverty, and the rich have so much as to nearly be the elite crew in the Hunger Games.

[raccoon]

42. This needs to be shouted:

It's always a bad thing, when Republicans use the word "reform," because they'll come as close to truncating whatever goes with the word as possible, it essentially means "cut."

[jazzimov]

2. Thank you for posting this!

Krugman is an economist, and I don't think he always understands the intricacies of Politics - but I think he NAILED it this time!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Historian's take:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. OOoooooooooooooo!

Pearl Jam's got a new album out? YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!

[hay rick]

4. Krugman sees clearly.

I started reading Krugman around the time Bush was "elected." I watched his column switch focus from a lot of economics stuff to more and more debunking of the Bush administration lies.

Reading the article reminded me of the media's uncritical adoption of "WMD", where mailed anthrax and an HD artillery shell were suddenly elevated to the same status as a nuclear weapon. The first few times I heard the usage I thought it was juvenile and melodramatic. I was stunned when the term gained universal acceptance. That was one of the early clues that our society had really driven over a cliff.

[tex-wyo-dem]

22. Yep, linguistics...the language and words we use...

And how they are perceived has powerful affects on the collective societal psyche. Politicians and the media start using these special use words that have been picked by think tanks and PR firms. They are chosen to have a very specific affect on our perception....basically like propoganda, but worse...more like mind control. So instead of unconventional weapons as I always remember chemical and biological weapons referred to as before the bushie years, they are now "weapons of mass distruction"....sounds much more fearful and sinister.

[Faygo Kid]

5. Worst ever. Agreed. We now live in a plutocracy.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but the Bush presidency destroyed our nation. Now, we are a bunch of serfs for those who own Congress.

By the way, I put Andrew Johnson next, then you can throw in a whole lot of them, including Nixon, Reagan, Buchanan, Coolidge, and plenty more.

I have my favorites, too, but it doesn't make a difference anymore. We are screwed.

[fasttense]

33. So true

I think his most important dishonest act was to use the Supreme Court as a puppet in a presidential election.

No other president in history ever got the Supremes to pick the president and declare that votes DO NOT COUNT.

Quite masterful if not so vile.

[Skittles]

6. I do not think bush was "arguably the worst ever"

no ARGUABLY - that bastard was THE WORST

[lakercub]

47. I struggle with that

I can't help going back to Reagan. Bush wouldn't even have been possible without Reagan and I'm still not sure who did more damage. Bush was so in-your-face bad that it can be hard to remember but Reagan administration policies did decades worth of damage as well.

I'll still pick Bush as Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in US History, but I just never want to see Reagan forgotten. He was despicable.

[Skittles]

49. I have to give bush the edge because

as much as I despise Reagan and realize he set America on her downward spiral - he WAS elected - he was not INSTALLED into the White House

[reformist2]

7. No doubt W was the worst ever, but no more of the "we may never recover" melodrama, please.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. No question Bush was dishonest,

but I mean come on, dishonesty on fundamental matters has a long tradition:

1 - Truman: never went before Congress for a declaration of war for Korea. Began the now long and dishonorable history of large, undeclared wars.
2 - Johnson: the Gulf of Tonkin, the Phoenix Program (a worthy parent of Guantanamo and water boarding).
3 - Nixon: No knock. Allende. All by itself those would do it, but then there's everything else. Not going to list, it would take me all day.
4 - Reagan: his tax cuts, his whole economic policy, which he sold to the "Reagan Democrats", most of whose children now have lousy, non-union jobs, if they even have jobs.

Carter was the only truly honest President we've had in my lifetime, and for his reward he was booted.
Obama's pretty close, I have to say.

[Katashi_itto]

10. No, there is no question. Bush was the worse and yes, we may never recover.

[xtraxritical]

36. You better go read up on Herbert Hoover.

[Katashi_itto]

37. I have. Bush is by far worse. He destroyed our inherent political system.

[eppur_se_muova]

43. The least you can say about HH is that he had good intentions.

Bu**sh** had none, except towards his cronies. The Presidency was just a toy his friends bought him so he would do favors for them.

[secondvariety]

9. Ten years

and there will be talk of putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

11. I'm thinking of sharing these words without mention who said them.

There are many programmed to discount his thoughts and don't even read what he has to say.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. That's actually the Rove legacy...

The idea that a "story" is all you need to win.

In Bush's case there was the "story" that he was a "good ol' boy rancher from Crawford."

That ranch was donated just prior the the election. The media played along with the lie. It was a former hog ranch and stank to high heaven.

You watch, after Romney's failure the Republicans are going to go back the the whole "country boy" scam again.

[CTyankee]

13. and the "ranch" was quietly sold right after the election...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. The town of "Crawford" was a fraud too.

[zeemike]

14. "unprecedented level of systematic dishonesty "

That is exactly what happened...in just a few words.

[stupidicus]

15. he's a tad behind the curve

it was the license that rightwingers gave their pols and pundits to lie free of any fear of reprisal, which no doubt started with the Iraq war more than anything else, that made the state of modern rightwingnuttery so easy to predict a decade ago now.

It's also imo, a key element in the mysterious "rightwing brain" some have attempted to pin down the causes for.

We may recover from it, but not until nearly half this country is deprogrammed.

[Cha]

16. bush was the worst and the only one who would have beaten his

ass for first place was mittload and he was rejected.

[kentuck]

17. They can't handle this truth...

about Bush.

[Cliff Arnebeck]

18. My response to Paul Krugman, in regard to his distaste for G.W. Bush

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/the-great-degrader/

Paul, I am the guy who introduced himself as your greatest fan, when standing first in line for your autograph of your "End this Depression Now" at the 2012 Take Back the American Dream Conference in D.C.

I am also the guy who signed, as counsel of record, the Moss v. Bush contest of the 2004 Presidential election before the Ohio Supreme Court.

I think you are wrong about President George W. Bush. I do not believe he is either a liar or a person who conducted himself in the office of President of the U.S. in bad faith. Furthermore, I think it very important that you reconsider your view of President G.W. Bush, for the sake of our future.

As long as G. W. Bush is perceived as the treacherous liar responsible for the disasters you describe, Karl Rove, the real culprit, will continue to practice his trade of serial treason against the people of the United States to the prejudice of civilization. Therefore, I implore you to take the time to understand Rove's role in betraying President G. W. Bush and us from his strategic position of trust and confidence within the White House from 2001 through 2007.

I have been blogging on this subject at Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022762994 and Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/25/1204847/-In-Praise-of-President-G-W-Bush?showAll=yes. My political home on the Web is ElectionProtectionAction.org in association with Jill Simpson who knows a lot about this subject.

[ProSense]

20. With all due respect,

I think you are wrong about President George W. Bush. I do not believe he is either a liar or a person who conducted himself in the office of President of the U.S. in bad faith. Furthermore, I think it very important that you reconsider your view of President G.W. Bush, for the sake of our future.

As long as G. W. Bush is perceived as the treacherous liar responsible for the disasters you describe, Karl Rove, the real culprit, will continue to practice his trade of serial treason against the people of the United States to the prejudice of civilization. Therefore, I implore you to take the time to understand Rove's role in betraying President G. W. Bush and us from his strategic position of trust and confidence within the White House from 2001 through 2007

...that's simply hogwash. Karl Rove is a deceitful bastard, but your attempt to cast Bush as a victim is simply absurd.

This is a person who sanctioned torture, who lied the country into an illegal war and much more. You speak about elections, but many of the things Bush did had nothing to do with Rove.

13 Reasons To Be Glad Bush Is No Longer President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022752658

Never forget: The Bush Administration failed to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022755411

"For the sake of our future," Bush should be tried for war crimes.

Pressure Mounts On Obama To Investigate Torture
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022752702

[Cliff Arnebeck]

32. The absurdity of the control we allowed Karl Rove to gain over our nation

It was Rove's casting of G.W. Bush as a victim--in real life--that was, and still is, absurd. And, don't forget the victimization of the Congress as well. Robert Byrd's voice of reason was a voice in the wilderness at that time.

Your view of G.W. Bush is clearly the view of a majority of grassroots Democrats, as well as two of our foremost intellectual leaders Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd for whom I have the utmost respect. However, please consider my point of view.

Rove is not just an evil genius acting alone. He aligned himself with Tom Donohue, Bill Canary, and Dick Addington in 1994, as well as with Boyden Gray, whose primary family loyalty was to the tobacco industry. In early 2000, out of desperation, Rove aligned himself with Donohue in his new capacity as head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and gave him a blank check drawn against the treasury of the United States Government. Rove sold us--Democrats, Republicans and Independents--down the river to gain control of the Presidency and our government for himself. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022628229 on the theft of the 2000 election, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022560634 on the theft of the 2004 election and http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022675796 on the theft of the 2010 elections.

[ProSense]

34. You know,

It was Rove's casting of G.W. Bush as a victim--in real life--that was, and still is, absurd. And, don't forget the victimization of the Congress as well. Robert Byrd's voice of reason was a voice in the wilderness at that time.

Your view of G.W. Bush is clearly the view of a majority of grassroots Democrats, as well as two of our foremost intellectual leaders Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd for whom I have the utmost respect. However, please consider my point of view.

Rove is not just an evil genius acting alone....

...I get that Rove is "evil" (I refuse to refer to that crooked asshole as a "genius&quot , but you are attempting to set the record straight on Rove by absolving Bush of any responsibility. Unless Rove had/has a hand up his back, Bush not only sanctioned torture, but continues to defend it.

You are speaking about election theft, but there were war crimes (an illegal war and torture) carried out by Bush, the President and son of a former President. He is not an innocent victim of Rove. In fact, if your portrayal of Bush is accurate, they need to tear down that library (it's a joke in any case) and charge him with being the most callous and incompetent fool ever (and a war criminal).

[Justina For Justice]

40. Neither George W. Bush nor Karl Rove Individually Wrecked the Havoc.

I have great respect for the views of both Paul Krugman and Cliff Arnebeck, but neither are targeting those really responsible for the current democratic and economic debacle.

George W. Bush was a vacuous puppet who was put into office to do the bidding of the wealthy cabal of neo-conservatives who were intent upon increasing their own wealth and power. Rove was merely one of the effective operatives for the cabal. Both were responsible for putting into place the horrendous policies that have effectively destroyed our constitutional democracy, but they were by no means alone in that operation.

The neo-conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court over-rode the vote and legal precedent by putting George W. Bush into office. The neo-cons, spread throughout the Bush administration, led by Vice President Cheney, developed the plans -- and the lies to justify those plans -- - for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The objective of both invasions was to assure that the oil industry could control the oil and the oil pipelines they coveted.

Yes, Bush was an abomination, as was Rove, but it was the wealthy neo-conservative cabal that put them in place to carry out their horrendous deeds. Many of those neo-cons are still in positions of power and continuing their nefarious plans to sustain the plutocracy. Obama and the captured Democratic Party are aiding those efforts.

It is dangerous to blame one stupid vain president or even one smart political operative for the destruction of our country. The problem is much deeper.

It was a joint effort by those in the 1% to effectuate their total control of not only the U.S. economy and its government, but the natural resources of our entire world. That is why we are now hearing the same lies to justify a take-down of Iran. Similar lies justify our funding of coups in Libya, Syria, Paraguay, Honduras or the attempt to tear down socialism in Venezuela. They seek "total world dominance" as they expressly put forth in their Project for a New American Century position papers, so arrogantly posted for all to see on the internet.

At base, it is the most powerful world capitalists who have been calling the shots through their neo-conservative mouthpieces in order to keep their profits and their powers flowing. It is the capitalist system itself which must be abolished if we are to have a society that is humanly fit for the majority of the world's citizens. George W. Bush and Karl Rove, however evil, are but minor actors in this despicable war on humanity.

[Cliff Arnebeck]

56. A cabal of predatory monopoly capitalists as our problem

I agree with much of what you say, Justina.

However, it is a cabal of predatory monopoly capitalists who are "in this despicable war on humanity." Capitalist systems under the rule of law in a democratic societies can be productive, profitable and beneficial to their general populations.

[fishwax]

24. Rove was bad, sure. So was bush. They both lied to the public.

[Electric Monk]

21. K&R

&U&G&M&A&N

[hfojvt]

23. well I have a bone to pick with my favorite hammer

Krugman writes "Bush never admitted that his tax cuts did, in fact, favor the wealthy."

I don't disagree with that, because I spent years hammering at Bush for it, from before he was elected.

BUT

On January 3rd Obama signed a bill making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent, a bill called ATRA

Have either Krugman OR Obama ever admitted that ATRA, does, in fact, favor the wealthy?

Also, Krugman, somewhat ridiculously closes with this "There was a time when Americans expected their leaders to be more or less truthful. Nobody expected them to be saints, but we thought we could trust them not to lie about fundamental matters. That time is now behind us — and it was Bush who did it."

Really? So before that, uhm. Mr. Richard Milhaus Nixon never lied to us? And not that it is a "fundamental matter" but, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton stood before a camera and told the nation "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I fervently hoped he was telling the truth, but I thought there was a very good chance he was lying. Krugman should consider reading Eric Alterman's book "When Presidents lie". He details the lies of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan.

But what changed is not the American public's naive expectation that Presidents will be honest, it was the public holding them accountable when they were not honest. But that changed under Clinton as much as anybody. Clinton was able to lie right in our faces and still have huge job approval numbers.

[ProSense]

25. Whenever

"Have either Krugman OR Obama ever admitted that ATRA, does, in fact, favor the wealthy? "

...you post this claim, I'll remind you that it's nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2759656

And you're fully aware that Krugman has addressed this. I believe you called him a "tool."

The President's policies did more to address inquality than any in decades.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

[hfojvt]

29. you have always been adept

at redundancy of those blue links.

But saying a claim is nonsense, does not make it nonsense.

And you are correct in one respect, Krugman has NOT admitted, any more than Bush, that ATRA favors the wealthy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2224304

So if Krugman wants to point a finger at Bush and call Bush a liar, then there are three fingers pointed right back at him, because he has told the same damned lie and Krugman, unlike Bush, should know enough about economics to know damned well that he IS lying. That ATRA, in fact, favors the wealthy with permanent tax cuts.

And you should too.

When you claim that "Your entire point is ignoring the fact that the income tax is progressive," you are NOT denying that the Obama-Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy, all you are saying is "they must inevitably favor the wealthy because the income tax is progressive".

Which happens to be one of the same lies that supporters of Bush told to sell his accursed tax cuts in the first place.

Did I mention that I have been fighting those accursed tax cuts from the beginning? So I have heard these ridiculous arguments before.

But I did not expect to hear them from Obama supporters or Democrats.

[ProSense]

26. Also, I have to ask:

Also, Krugman, somewhat ridiculously closes with this "There was a time when Americans expected their leaders to be more or less truthful. Nobody expected them to be saints, but we thought we could trust them not to lie about fundamental matters. That time is now behind us — and it was Bush who did it."

Really? So before that, uhm. Mr. Richard Milhaus Nixon never lied to us? And not that it is a "fundamental matter" but, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton stood before a camera and told the nation "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I fervently hoped he was telling the truth, but I thought there was a very good chance he was lying. Krugman should consider reading Eric Alterman's book "When Presidents lie". He details the lies of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan.

Do you really equate the Lewinsky incident to lying the country into war and sanctioning torture? Are you really trying to equate Bush to Roosevelt and Kennedy? Or is this defend asshole Republicans day?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2766497

[hfojvt]

27. Gulf of Tonkin?

And I started with Nixon.

It is Alterman, whose signature book covers Roosevelt and Kennedy. I mention that only because I happen to be a fan of Alterman, was a daily reader of his blog Altercation before I joined DU, and Eric was very proud of his magnum opus "When Presidents Lie" a book which seemed kinda topical in the face of Krugman's assertion that Bush was the first President who lied (or something).

It also seemed relevant to mention, (although I qualified it by admitting it was not a "fundamental matter&quot Clinton's blatant lie of recent memory.

Once you blatantly lie like that, it is kinda hard to say "Trust me. I only lie about the little stuff, not the big, important stuff." or "I only had to lie to the public, because I was lying to my wife too."

[ProSense]

28. You went

It is Alterman, whose signature book covers Roosevelt and Kennedy. I mention that only because I happen to be a fan of Alterman, was a daily reader of his blog Altercation before I joined DU, and Eric was very proud of his magnum opus "When Presidents Lie" a book which seemed kinda topical in the face of Krugman's assertion that Bush was the first President who lied (or something).

It also seemed relevant to mention, (although I qualified it by admitting it was not a "fundamental matter&quot Clinton's blatant lie of recent memory.

Once you blatantly lie like that, it is kinda hard to say "Trust me. I only lie about the little stuff, not the big, important stuff." or "I only had to lie to the public, because I was lying to my wife too."

...into detail about Lewinsky.

Again, do you really equate the Lewinsky incident to lying the country into war and sanctioning torture? Are you really trying to equate Bush to Roosevelt and Kennedy? Or is this defend asshole Republicans day?

I mean, you posted this as if to object to Krugman's characterization of Bush.

[hfojvt]

30. I do object

to Krugman's assertion that Bush was the first President to lie.

That isn't a "defense of Bush".

How many times do I have to say that Lewinsky was not about a "fundamental matter" before you will stop asking me if I equate things?

But a blatant lie certainly opens the door. If I cannot trust you not to steal 10 cents, how can I trust you not to steal $1,000? If you lie to the people you say that you love, then why wouldn't you also lie to complete strangers?

I always said that about Bush too. That Bush lied about math. He basically said things like 3 +5 is greater than the square root of 81. If you lie about something that anybody can check on a calculator, then why would we trust ANYthing you say?

[ProSense]

31. First,

I do object to Krugman's assertion that Bush was the first President to lie.

That isn't a "defense of Bush".

...that is not what Krugman said, and your deflection is an attempt to defend Bush. Krugman:

But I think there was something even bigger, in some ways, than his policy failures: Bush brought an unprecedented level of systematic dishonesty to American political life, and we may never recover.

You:

"But a blatant lie certainly opens the door. If I cannot trust you not to steal 10 cents, how can I trust you not to steal $1,000? If you lie to the people you say that you love, then why wouldn't you also lie to complete strangers?

So you are trying to equate the Lewinsky incident to Iraq and torture.

I always said that about Bush too. That Bush lied about math. He basically said things like 3 +5 is greater than the square root of 81. If you lie about something that anybody can check on a calculator, then why would we trust ANYthing you say?"

Your point is pure obfuscation. Bush didn't simly lie about "math."

[Bandit]

54. To call what Clinton said a blatant lie is the same as saying evolution is "only a theory"

According to the "LEGAL" definition given to bill clinton at the time oral sex was not considered sex...Legally.... now to the common man that certainly is not the case. Oral sex is sex plain and simple, but in the context of the Clinton statement using the LEGAL definition given him He did not tell a LIE..Just as "Scientific Theory" is different than common usage of the word "theory" so is legal definition different than common usage.

[stupidicus]

38. and exactly when was it the lies regarding Tonkin were exposed

and all doubt removed (or what shoulda been anyway) for the public?

One can certainly argue for media complicity in both cases, Tonkin & Iraq, but there's a vast difference between having those lies exposed in a widespread and timely manner as was the case for Bush, and it being excused by his supporters during that time frame and beyond, and LBJ's supporters never having that opportunity at the time.

Do you think liberals/dems would have given LBJ the unqualified support for the war Bush recieved and continues to recieve from many had they known at the time they were being lied to?

Although information obtained well after the fact supported Captain Herrick's statements about the inaccuracy of the later torpedo reports as well as the 1981 Herrick/Scheer conclusion about the inaccuracy of the first, indicating that there was no North Vietnamese attack that night, at the time U.S. authorities and all of the Maddox crew stated that they were convinced that an attack had taken place. As a result, planes from the carriers Ticonderoga and Constellation were sent to hit North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel facilities during Operation Pierce Arrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distortion_of_the_event

That's what Krugman is referring to imo, not that Bush started the lying. The truth poses an existential threat to modern rightwingnuttery, and increasingly so, and they've relied on lying, denials, etc far in excess starting with the Bush admin than ever before. Their pols and pundits have a license to lie freely now, and without any fear of financial or political reprisal from their minions, who share their shame over Iraq and a great deal else.

I can't help but recall a couple of polls I did on a large board during that time, asking at two different points if he should be impeached and prosecuted if it is inevitably shown he lied us into war and was behind any torture. Almost to a man/woman, the rightwingnuts said yes.

Then what happened? I don't have to answer that, do I? Bush and crew made lying the rule, not the exception, and established that they could do it with impunity -- something LBJ, etc, would have never considered doing for the obvious reason.

That's what Krugman is talking about, and what I saw coming at the time. ANd it's only gotten worse, no, in a "Oh whatta tangled web we weave..." kinda way? ANd he's right, the deleterious effects of this are incalculable, or at the very least, would be very numerous if one wanted to study/list them. You could start with AGW, or maybe even the more recent debunking of their "austerity" BS which they'll continue to lie about and defend, much as they have Bush's legacy.

[hfojvt]

41. and yet you don't want to say anything

about the lying of Obama and Krugman

Why is that?

Why is their lying excused by their supporters? Is that Bush's fault too?

[stupidicus]

44. right

like you know my history for such.

maybe you should ask the author of this top post about my record of taking BHO to task.

We're all liars from time to time, but there's a vast difference between that and being a pathological liar like most modern rightwingers are on issues big and small. Bush imo, put the rightwingnut art of political lying http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/history-politcal-lying on steroids, which the Mutt tried to give an additional dose during the last pres campaign. That puncuates my point regarding the way in the wake of the Bush admin, they all feel, and rightly so, that they can lie liberally and freely without fear of reprisal like never before. Hell, the list of frequently repeated zombie lies they tell that have been debunked to high heaven could take a day or two to complete.

That condition simply didn't exist in whatever form or measure you wanna use prior to the Bush admin. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/21/504201/poll-republicans-iraq-wmd/

I have no need nor desire to address the lies, real or imagined, of BHO or Krugman here, because that has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case Krugman made about Bush and his lying, and role it has played in making it a modern rightwingnut pol and pundit requirement that is applied to every stinking issue of significance/consequence before us, and often those with none at all, like Saudis on the WH visitor list.

I'd also say that the internet has had a magnification role in this too, given how close positive reinforcement is for us all these days.

[hfojvt]

45. actually they do

because the first thing Krugman took Bush to task for was, (as I said in my FIRST post in this subthread before, for some reason, another argument got started over whether Bush was a bigger liar than Nixon or LBJ)

"Krugman writes "Bush never admitted that his tax cuts did, in fact, favor the wealthy."

I don't disagree with that, because I spent years hammering at Bush for it, from before he was elected.

BUT

On January 3rd Obama signed a bill making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent, a bill called ATRA

Have either Krugman OR Obama ever admitted that ATRA, does, in fact, favor the wealthy? "

Thus Krugman is taking Bush to task for a lie, that Krugman himself has told, and that Obama has told.

And you happily ignore that part of my post to get into an argument that I, personally, find somewhat irrelevant - whether Bush is a bigger liar than Nixon or Reagan. And you find it odd that Bush's supporters make excuses for, or ignore, Bush's lies. Yet you seem, as an Obama and Krugman supporter to be right HERE ignoring Obama and Krugman's lies.

[stupidicus]

52. oh good grief -- are you math challenged?

I find it odd that you've cited one alleged lie told by BHO and Krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/obama-and-redistribution/ (where he says it eroded their wealth, not that it didn't still favor them) and want to compare it to the tons told by Bush that are far more damaging, particularly in the "making it the norm" way Krugman addressed.

You also seem to be either reading comp skills challenged or dishonest as well. Nowhere and at no time have I "approved or supported" the lies of anyone, you just seem to be hell bent on promoting a rather stupid false comparison of "BHO's/Krugman's" real or merely percieved lie on this one matter is "just like" and "as bad as" all the lying Bush did that made lying the norm and acceptable, and it could be reasonably argued, demanded in the rightwingnut ranks.

That's a stupid false comparison worthy of a rightwingnut, and the "as bad as" BS is in frequent common use by rightwingnuts as well. You cling to it if you must, but the numbers simply do not add up.

By all means, give us a top post about how BHO/Krugman are "just like Bush" http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/confronting-a-partner/compulsive-lying/types-of-liars.html based on your pathetic case for it, and deserving of the same level of ridicule as Bush for it.

and post a link to it here so that I might join the rest of the board in giving you what you deserve in a much more public way.

Your BS here in no way undermines Krugman's point, and no more so than had he caught you in a lie and you then used a "well, that guy lied too" as a means of exonerating yourself. Lies/liars are no more born nor continue to exist as equals -- particularly when frequency is factored in -- than we humans are period by many measures.

Gee what's next, the pickpocket and the serial rapist/murderer (or war criminal like Bush) are "the same" because they are both "criminals"?

BY you're illogic/BS, it would seem so.

[hfojvt]

53. you are approving and supporting a lie right here

you call it an "alleged" lie

Further, I twice said that you IGNORED it. Not that you approved or supported it. Ignore it and go off on a thousand and one tangents.

And Obama told far more than one lie.

The Obama-Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich. They always did. But Obama always called them "middle class tax cuts". Every time he did that, Obama lied.

Krugman, unlike myself, gave Obama a pass on those lies.

The very same lies that he takes Bush to task for as ONE of TWO examples that Krugman uses.

[stupidicus]

55. learn the meaning of the word "implied"

ignoring/silence is consent. I didn't "ignore" it anyway, I made the case that one or two real or imagined lies doesn't even begin to compare to the wholesale lying Bush did that Krugman addressed, whether you stupidly wanna claim that is "irrelevant" or not.

That is no doubt why you lack the cajones to do a Top Post on the matter no?

Gee, I've made quite a few negative posts regarding BHO in my short time participating here. What are you afraid of, eh?

Oh that's right, you've got nothing but a stupid false equivalence worthy of a rightwingnut, and that's it.

[Berlum]

46. George AWOL Bush & the Cabal O'Corrupt Republican Cronies lied us into war

[AlbertCat]

48. I disagree a little bit....

I mean NIXON! "I am not a crook."

And of course Iran Contra....

We've had liars and crooks... big ones (makes lying about a BJ look like what it was...nothing)

I think what makes Bush Jr. so different is he's not remotely in charge. Even Ronnie Raygun seemed more in the middle of it. Bush is the 1st President not to be in charge at all. Just a fund raiser and TV personality while others, who no one voted for or even liked enough to be on TV in an engaging way (now who could I be talking about?) ran things from an undisclosed location.

Nixon and Reagan were trial versions of the Cardboard Cutout President (Reagan) who is really a committee that does as it pleases (Nixon).... perfected with Bush.

[blkmusclmachine]

50. .

.

[TheMadMonk]

51. Too dumb to even be in the running. Cheney and Rove ran the show.

Worst Presidency, but not Worst President.