SocraticGadfly: Paul Krugman: Your Jackass O'Day with Hillary Clinton Gets Gored (updated)
Stealing a recent blogging theme from friend Brains (who should start using blog tags so we can track this idea) I am doing my own first Jackass O'Day piece.
It's on Paul Krugman. For this, which I on Twitter called his Worst.Column.Ever. Because it is.
Let's look back at 2000's election, since he does.
Certain chunks of the media may have said they would prefer to have a beer with Bush rather than Gore. Of course, one of those offices with Krugman. (See Dowd, Maureen.)
That said, Krugman first ignores that Gore had real baggage. I'm not just talking about how to use, or not use, the Big Dog aka the Slickster, on the campaign trail.
He WAS, when not as wooden as an old hickory tree, a personality who often came off as lecturing, occasionally even supercilious.
But he had bigger baggage yet. Like illegal fundraising.
Besides Wikipedia having an entry called "1996 United States campaign finance controversy," in June 2000, Salon ran what it called "A Gore scandal guide for dummies."
His real problem here is that he wasn't as slick as The Slickster (or Madame Slickster) so this all stuck to him more. And, it began looking more and more like a coverup. Plus, the allegedly cleaner than a hounds-tooth AG Janet Reno refused to appoint an independent prosecutor. So, despite him not wanting to be too close to the Slickster on the 2000 campaign trail, because of his attempt to stifle the campaign finance investigation, and what must be called Reno's attempt to do the same, the Clinton-Gore Administration left plenty of mud on Al Gore.
As for the 2000 press's coverage of Bush, it may have been somewhat too friendly, but was it totally fawning? No. And while Shrub had inherited daddy's malaprops, he had by and large avoided huge stumbles on the trail or during his Texas governorship, until that old DWI popped up.
That, in turn, even if Gore had nothing to do with it, looked like something Gore would have done. And, Gore's oppo research DID bring up Ralph Nader's holding oil stocks.
That's a whole nother story, and why I eventually didn't vote for Prez in 2000. I thought Nader was more egotistical than either Gore or Bush. And, I thought that him holding Big Oil stocks made him unfit to carry the Green standard.
Anyway, Krugman goes on to fellate the Clinton Foundation. In doing so, he whitewashes the reality of the case of Muhammad Yunus and more.
The more includes ignoring a story his own paper did just last year, about the Clinton Foundation getting a big Russian money windfall after the Hillary Clinton-led State Department signed off on Russia obtaining a share of U.S. uranium production.
At the heart of the tale are several
men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major
donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton
and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually
sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium
Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate
transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash
made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used
his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White
House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the
company made donations as well.
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian
investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
Now, Clintonista flacks have been spinning hard ever since this story was written. But they can't make it go away. Just Google "Frank Giustra" and you'll learn a lot, lot more.
And we haven't even talked about her vote for the Iraq War, her sponsorship of the coup in Honduras, and other foreign policy fiascos. Or the Slickster getting $18M as "honorary chancellor" of a for-profit college.
As for Krugman himself? Per Wiki, he worked in the Reagan White House Council of Economic Advisers, though he has attempted to softpedal that — even though he started more than 18 months after Reagan's inauguration. And, he's long been an ardent free-trader, though he now claims new free trade pacts have diminishing returns. Labels:
On October 25 the Federal Election Commission posted this list of presidential candidates who are on the ballot in at least one state. The FEC chart tells ...
SocraticGadfly: Paul Krugman: Your Jackass O'Day with Hillary Clinton Gets Gored (updated)
Stealing a recent blogging theme from friend Brains (who should start using blog tags so we can track this idea) I am doing my own first Jackass O'Day piece.
It's on Paul Krugman. For this, which I on Twitter called his Worst.Column.Ever. Because it is.
Let's look back at 2000's election, since he does.
Certain chunks of the media may have said they would prefer to have a beer with Bush rather than Gore. Of course, one of those offices with Krugman. (See Dowd, Maureen.)
That said, Krugman first ignores that Gore had real baggage. I'm not just talking about how to use, or not use, the Big Dog aka the Slickster, on the campaign trail.
He WAS, when not as wooden as an old hickory tree, a personality who often came off as lecturing, occasionally even supercilious.
But he had bigger baggage yet. Like illegal fundraising.
Besides Wikipedia having an entry called "1996 United States campaign finance controversy," in June 2000, Salon ran what it called "A Gore scandal guide for dummies."
His real problem here is that he wasn't as slick as The Slickster (or Madame Slickster) so this all stuck to him more. And, it began looking more and more like a coverup. Plus, the allegedly cleaner than a hounds-tooth AG Janet Reno refused to appoint an independent prosecutor. So, despite him not wanting to be too close to the Slickster on the 2000 campaign trail, because of his attempt to stifle the campaign finance investigation, and what must be called Reno's attempt to do the same, the Clinton-Gore Administration left plenty of mud on Al Gore.
As for the 2000 press's coverage of Bush, it may have been somewhat too friendly, but was it totally fawning? No. And while Shrub had inherited daddy's malaprops, he had by and large avoided huge stumbles on the trail or during his Texas governorship, until that old DWI popped up.
That, in turn, even if Gore had nothing to do with it, looked like something Gore would have done. And, Gore's oppo research DID bring up Ralph Nader's holding oil stocks.
That's a whole nother story, and why I eventually didn't vote for Prez in 2000. I thought Nader was more egotistical than either Gore or Bush. And, I thought that him holding Big Oil stocks made him unfit to carry th
e Green standard.
Anyway, Krugman goes on to fellate the Clinton Foundation. In doing so, he whitewashes the reality of the case of Muhammad Yunus and more.
The more includes ignoring a story his own paper did just last year, about the Clinton Foundation getting a big Russian money windfall after the Hillary Clinton-led State Department signed off on Russia obtaining a share of U.S. uranium production.
At the heart of the tale are several
men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major
donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton
and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually
sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium
Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate
transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash
made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used
his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White
House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the
company made donations as well.
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian
investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
Now, Clintonista flacks have been spinning hard ever since this story was written. But they can't make it go away. Just Google "Frank Giustra" and you'll learn a lot, lot more.
And we haven't even talked about her vote for the Iraq War, her sponsorship of the coup in Honduras, and other foreign policy fiascos. Or the Slickster getting $18M as "honorary chancellor" of a for-profit college.
As for Krugman himself? Per Wiki, he worked in the Reagan White House Council of Economic Advisers, though he has attempted to softpedal that — even though he started more than 18 months after Reagan's inauguration. And, he's long been an ardent free-trader, though he now claims new free trade pacts have diminishing returns. Labels:
On October 25 the Federal Election Commission posted this list of presidential candidates who are on the ballot in at least one state. The FEC chart tells ...