Why is it OK to criticize Obama, but not Krugman?

[ProSense]

Criticism of Obama is "dissent," but criticism of Krugman is "censorship."

Krugman is a columnist, and his opinions and assertions should be criticized when they approach hyperbole:

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank.

link

[Thickasabrick]

1. Krugman is a lousy speaker.....how's that?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

2. I think some people's problem is that it seems some are not

criticizing what is wrong with what he's saying, just the fact that he's saying it...

[camera obscura]

11. Exactly. Because apparently it hurts the country. Much like how criticizing Bush after 9/11 hurt us.

Or at least, that's what the Republicans and the Democratic concern trolls wanted us to believe.

[camera obscura]

3. Because 99% of the Krugman criticism is ad hominem attacks on the man himself rather than his words.

I don't think that saying you disagree with him is censorship, but I think flailing about and calling him a PUMA and an Obama-hater is silly and below the level of discourse to which we should be holding ourselves.

[leftstreet]

4. We didn't vote for Krugman to represent us?

Is that the correct answer?

[Thickasabrick]

5. Dammit.....good answer....wish I'd thought of it. n/t

[ProSense]

8. So we can only criticize elected officials?

So much for criticizing Pandit, Liddy and Limbaugh.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

13. those poeple spew hate. do you think paul krugman spreads hate for

saying obama's policies don't go far enough?

[ProSense]

15. So we only criticize people for spreading hate? n/t

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

16. well what exactly are you criticizing krugman for doing, other than questioning obama's policies?

[ProSense]

20. Read the OP

using hyperbole to bolster his argument for nationalization.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

22. ok, and why exactly do you disagree with what he is saying?

what specifically do you think krugman is wrong on, other than his rhetorical approach?

[ProSense]

25. "what specifically do you think krugman is wrong on, other than his rhetorical approach?"

That's it, I don't approve of his rhetoric. Isn't that enough?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

28. so if he takes that part out, are you fine with everything else krugman says?

[ProSense]

32. I'm sorry, but

didn't I provide link?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

34. Ok, thank you.

my problem is someone saying that he shouldn't criticize obama or write anything critical just because they don't think obama needs to be criticized yet. you gave reasons why you disagree with what he is saying. gracias.

[Frank Booth]

54. My problem is the way many people here idolize Krugman, assuming

that everything he says is always right.

I'm sure much of what he says is correct, but I don't agree with the notion that if Krugman doesn't approve of an Obama policy, then that policy is automatically incorrect.

[Hansel]

33. Krugman does not always focus on Obama's policies.

He has a history of making personal attacks on both him and his supporters. Something about them being a cult and venomous comes to mind. It's not a secret that Krugman personally dislikes Obama so I don't really take much stock in anything he has to say about his policies. He simply destroyed any credibility he had on the subject with me.

[leftstreet]

14. No, criticize away. I just don't see the comparison.

It's not logical.

Why can't we criticize Nancy Pelosi, but we can criticize Obama would make more sense.

[ProSense]

17. We can't criticize Nancy Pelosi? n/t

[leftstreet]

19. Sure, criticize away

:shrug:

[KansasVoter]

6. I have nor problem criticizing him. but not silencing him!

[ProSense]

9. Who is trying to silence him? n/t

[HughMoran]

65. Oh, did somebody shoot him?

Please update me!

[BlooInBloo]

7. Because "dissent is patriotic" applies ONLY to ihateobama people.

[fishwax]

10. it's not okay to criticize Krugman?

:rofl:

[ErinBerin84]

12. good point

I like Krugman and agree with him a lot of the time, but there is a certain irony in some people (*some) who claim rightfully that Obama can be criticized, but freak out when other perceived icons of DU are criticized. Both are fair, and it is up to people who disagree with that particular criticism to respond in a respectful way.

[camera obscura]

21. Again... the problem is that people criticize him for ridiculous reasons like "he's hurting Obama"

and saying that now is not the time for dissent because the stakes are too high, etc, etc.

Obama is an adult, and unlike Bush, his presidency can withstand scrutiny and come out all the more stronger.

[ErinBerin84]

23. yes, but other people

just dislike Krugman for his tone, and like Robert Reich better when he is essentially making a lot of the same points Krugman is making. I like them both for the most part. But yes, there are some of those people you described too. But not all critique of Krugman is like that.

[gristy]

18. Who says it is OK to criticize Obama but not Krugman?

[Hansel]

24. Good question. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Saint Paul is a "genius"

BHO is a teleprompter-using charlatan.

Keep up.

:sarcasm:

[chascarrillo]

35. Saint Obama is a "genius"

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Disagreeing with Saint Paul's assertions = censorship

It's axiomatic!

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Saint Paul has a beard, like Jesus

Obama is clean-shaven, like Ted Bundy.

It's clear as day, you censor!

:sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Saint Paul is being silenced!

There are only a hundred, and not a thousand, threads referencing his columns on DU.

:sarcasm:

[HughMoran]

67. Apparently K vs O is a heavyweight match that will draw thousands

Will it be O.K. or a K.O.?

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Saint Paul wisely supported the only true deserving candidate

BHO, on the other hand, is like the snazzy young guy who skips the line for promotion behind his good looks, smooth talk, and general partriarchal dominance!

Don't you know anything?

:sarcasm:

[Jennicut]

36. People never want their heroes criticized. Both Obama and Krugman are human

and have flaws. Neither are perfect. Both deserve criticism at times. Obama is being too cautious in my opinion and perhaps nationalizing the banks may be the best way to go. Krugman writes entries about economics for no care or consideration for political realities and offers simple solutions to complex problems. I know this post does not take a stand in the Krugman vs. Obama debate but frankly I am kind of bored with it.

[depakid]

37. "offers simple solutions to complex problems."

They only seem simple to folks because he's writing a column for the general public- most of whom have only a rudimentary grasp of economics (at best).

And, having read his columns and books for years, I can assure you that he's got more than a little understanding of politics- and has often been astonisiongly prescient in his predictions of political outcomes

Does that mean he doesn't get it wrong- or that every take is a masterpiece. Of course not. But the record shows that he's right a whole lot more often than not.

The same can't be said of Summers and Gaithner.

[Jennicut]

38. Sorry but he does come of that way at times. I never said what he

said was wrong. I just feel neither Obama nor Krugman are perfect in every respect.

[Baikonour]

39. Kind of hard to criticize a man like Krugman when he's right more often or not.

The truth, it usually burns.

[FrenchieCat]

40. The truth on untested economic theory is relative.

His work on International Trade won him a Nobel Prize,
but as far as his political commentary is concerned,
he leaves me wanting.

To explain:
He wasn't so left when Clinton was in office...so deregulation was ok for him then.
He supported Mrs. Clinton during the primaries,
so he didn't have any real problems with Summers,
considering that Summers was a Clintonite. Same with Geithner.
However, he politically criticized Obama throughout the primaries,
literally took sides and instigated as often as possible.
and now he appears to have taken real dislike for Summers and Geithner's policies,
and to a certain Degree Obama doesn't appear to be his cup of tea...
which one can tell from his articles....
yet the Clintons are still just peachy.
There something there not quite as brilliant as one would expect from a genius
about all of that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Saint Paul lerved Larry Summers until he didn't

Saint Paul is "right nmore often than not," which is to say, he Clintons all the time Clintons all the time Clintons all the tiiii---iiime.

[Baikonour]

48. I understand he isn't a politician, and it's a good point.

But I don't read his stuff for his political views. If I read something of his that is largely him just criticizing a politician, then I'll disregard it. If, however, he is criticizing said politician's economic views or policies, then I'm all in.

[elleng]

41. Its OK to criticize both or either of them

as long as its done civilly.

[TankLV]

43. It's perfectly OK to crciticize both

IF that criticism is warranted,
IF that criticism is based on FACTS, not LIES

NOBODY is above criticism...

I just happen to agree and trust Obama AS WELL AS Krugman on most everything I've read/seen so far...

And Krugman is NOT opposing Obama at all - people have UNDERSTAND what he's saying - he's been one of Obama's biggest supporters and wants him to SUCCEED!!!

You can actually be a supporter of BOTH...

[NJmaverick]

44. Krugman compared Obama's supporters to Nixon's people

He is a bitter PUMA that uses his economic credentials as cover for his anti Obama vendetta

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080211150350.aspx

[nichomachus]

45. So, Krugman is paying the price for

not sticking to the Obama Fan Club (formerly known as Democratic Underground) orthodoxy and not swooning every time Obama's name is mentioned.

[ProSense]

46. What?

The Krugman "Fan Club" is a wee bit sensitive, huh? Suddenly Krugman is being treated like an oracle who must never be criticized, condemning those who criticize him as "trying to bring him down," as if the choice is Krugman or President Obama, and the President is expendable.

There is something very wrong with that, not the least of which is the irony.

[Cleita]

47. Because Obama is the most powerful person on the planet today, and his

decisions affect everyone. Paul Krugman writes about the economy, has influence through his writing, but he has no power. What he thinks and writes about will not bring down economies and nations if he makes a mistake. Look what Bush was able to do to us and yet we prevented him, by constant criticism, from starting wars in Iran and North Korea, as well as suspending the election by declaring martial law because of terra, terra.

[ProSense]

49. That's very true

Paul Krugman writes about the economy, has influence through his writing, but he has no power. What he thinks and writes about will not bring down economies and nations if he makes a mistake.

Still, it's not a reason to hold him above criticism.

We've also seen the power of the media.

[stillcool]

52. Actually there are far more powerful...

than the President. The President represents that power, but if that power decides his time is up..his time is up. The power is well represented in D.C., but the people cede all their power to the few they elect. It's fine to criticize the President on the internet, but quite another to expect people to call their own representatives. I'm not sure I understand what exactly 'support' means to people, or what kind of a government people think we have.

[GeorgeGist]

50. Criticize both ...

OK?

[paulk]

51. there's nothing wrong with it

though most of what advertises itself as "criticism" here on DU regarding Krugman could more accurately be described as character assassination.

And hyperbole is often in the eye of the beholder. I find the statement you bold as fairly accurate, especially in the context of the complete article you pulled it from.

[Frank Booth]

53. REC!

Those who think they're so "independent-minded" by attacking Obama pounce like mad dogs upon any criticism of Krugman. The views of many here can be summarized by this poll I posted yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8279793&mesg_id=8279793

[paulk]

59. wow! a DU poll!

Nine whole votes - now that's what I call definitive!

[Frank Booth]

68. I guess you missed my point.

I'll try to put it more bluntly next time.

[truebluedemz]

55. Criticize Who You Want

It's okay to criticize anyone you want. This is STILL the USA and so far the RWNs haven't gotten rid of the first amendment.

[EFerrari]

56. Krugman is a columnist? Really? Did someone take away his Nobel Prize

and chair at the University?

That's pretty dishonest and I'm surprised at you.

[ProSense]

57. What?

He isn't a columnist?

Did someone take away his Nobel Prize and chair at the University?

Is that sarcasm?

[EFerrari]

58. Am I totally misreading you? You're not reducing Krugman's many accomplishments

to his column, right? That would be like characterizing Obama as the man who opened for John Kerry?

[ProSense]

60. Perhaps.

I know, and I believe most people know, who Krugman is, and among other things, he is a columnist.

Since this is about his columns, I referred to him that way.

[EFerrari]

61. Fight the good fight. I've learned a lot from your posts and have appreciated them.

But when you reduce your opponent to less than his real stature, you diminish yourself.

[ProSense]

63. There is nothing in the OP

that remotely diminishes Krugman. The point is simple: He is not above or exempt from criticism.

[EFerrari]

64. You said:

"Krugman is a columnist, and his opinions and assertions should be criticized when they approach hyperbole".

And that's not true. Maureen Dowd is a columnist. Bill Kristol is a columnist. Paul Krugman is not merely a columnist and to describe him that way is counter productive -- at best.

I agree with you that he is not above criticism, so maybe what I'm trying to say is don't alienate people who agree with you with that kind of dishonesty.

[BlooInBloo]

62. Um, that's why they're called "ihateobama people", and not "ihatekrugman people" - durr.

EDIT: Alt answer: Because they're lying hypocritical whiny ass titty babies.

[joshcryer]

66. Typical strawman argument.

[Two Americas]

69. huh?

No one said you couldn't criticize Krugman. He has been lambasted here everyday.

What public office does he hold, again? I forgot.


...