Paul Krugman: Who's Nader Now?

[maha]

In the 2000 election, in a campaign that seemed driven more by vanity than by any realistic political vision, Ralph Nader did all he could to undermine Al Gore — even though Mr. Gore, however unsatisfying to the Naderites, was clearly a better choice than the current occupant of the White House.

Now the Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in the race for the nomination who seem more interested in tearing down Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush.

The truth — which one hopes voters will remember, whoever gets the nomination — is that the leading Democratic contenders share a lot of common ground. Their domestic policy proposals are similar, and very different from those of Mr. Bush. Even on foreign policy, the differences are less stark than they may appear. ...

Yet some of Mr. Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. And I don't buy the excuse that it's all about ensuring that the party chooses an electable candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

[Rose Siding]

1. I don't suppose Krugman

would take McCauliffe's job?

Good article. Glad to see it.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. That was pretty much my reaction to the piece

. . . on the thread in GDprime.

[Cha]

2. "Who's Nader Now?"

Good one. nader is now in the lexicon.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. It's a valid question, though I question his answer.

WHO DA NADER?

[BeyondGeography]

4. Many problems here

Krugman shows some painful gaps as a political opinion writer. Methinks the Krugster should stick to economics.

Examples:

"It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same with any Democrat--even Joe Lieberman."

Ahem, General Clark, a wild-eyed lib and weak-kneed? Think again, Krugster.

"A Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival."

Does that include labelling fellow Democrats Bush-Lite?

[For PaisAn]

5. Exactly

Excellent points. I'm surprised at Krugman for writing without thinking first. It weakens some of his statements that were accurate.

[cindyw]

7. Thank you

>"A Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival."

>Does that include labeling fellow Democrats Bush-Lite?

Exactly. I think Krugman makes some great points, but he falls into that sad category that thinks that the primary should be over and that all other candidates should bow down to the front-runner. Bush will attack the eventual nominee regardless of the efforts of the primary opponents. They could all sing cumbaya and hug a lot on stage and Bush would still trash his opponent. I also don't know of anything that any of the candidates have said that can be construed to mean that Bush would be better that Dean. I've heard that Bush can beat Dean, but for the most part the candidates all think a garden tool could do a better job than Bush. It is quite misleading for Krugman to suggest that anyone is saying this. Krugman also fails to apply his standards to Dean himself. Unfortunate unfairness.

IMHO, it is better for the party the closer this primary run gets. The harder the opponents fight and the longer it takes. McAuliffe's plan to front load the primary was wrong because it makes the nominee a target for a longer period of time. We need this thing to drag out to the convention, so that the Dems stay in the spot light through the summer and on into the election. Bush will get enough good press. The last thing we need is a bored press corp with way too much time on their hands to dig up dirt on and trash the nominee. We have to make our target "thinner" and harder to attack. Just like Kerry did in Vietnam.

[maha]

8. Hello? Hello?

> Ahem, General Clark, a wild-eyed lib and weak-kneed? Think again, Krugster.

When did the VRWC base its attacks on reality? The Dem nominee, whoever he is, WILL be attacked as a wild-eyed liberal who is soft on terrorism. Remember Max Cleland?

In General Clark's case, the VRWC is already calling him "crazy," a tactic that worked nicely against John McCain in 2000.

[BeyondGeography]

9. There's this thing called Kosovo

and a dictator named Milosevic. He was a real, live evil-doer. And Wes took him down.

You're right, they will go after Wes as a crazy. He's just got more bullets in his gun than they've ever dealt with (sorry to go military here, but it's what the Republicans understand). He can stand those attacks on their head better and quicker than any other Democrat. It's not even close. I mean, how does a crazy get four stars and the NATO command?

He will also force them to play defense on 9/11, which happened after 8 months of the Bush Administration playing politics with foreign policy (i.e. reversing everything that Clinton ever did) and totally ignoring Sandy Berger's warning, issued at the end of Jan., 2001, that OBL and al-Qaeda was the biggest national security issue.

It's not going to be easy to mess with Wes.

[maha]

17. It Will Get Uglier

I have my hopes pinned on the General also, and for the same reasons you do, but the only sure thing is that the VWRC with the help of their media whores will be able to persuade a large portion of the population that Wes Clark belongs belongs in a straitjacket.

The question is, how far can cognitive dissonance be stretched before it snaps?

[reachout]

18. Facts

"Milosevic. He was a real, live evil-doer. And Wes took him down."


Um, that's an interesting rewrite of history. The bombing of Serbia took place in 1998 and Sebian forces left Kosovo (similar to Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait). Milosevic was removed from power in a bloodless revolution by his own people in October of 2000 and arrested in April of 2001 (once again by Serbians). He was voted out, refused to leave, and the people (not some foreign military) saw to it that he couldn't govern. If only Americans had that kind of backbone.


Timeline:

2000 September - Slobodan Milosevic bans international observers from monitoring elections. Opposition claims victory, Vojislav Kostunica declares himself the "people's president".

Federal Election Commission calls for second ballot, saying neither candidate won outright majority. Hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters take to streets to demand Milosevic stand down.

2000 October - General strike begins as Milosevic remains defiant. Constitutional court annuls election results and says Milosevic should serve out his last year in office.

Tens of thousands of opposition supporters capture parliament building and state television service. Kostunica tells half a million supporters at Belgrade rally that Serbia has been liberated.

2000 November - Yugoslavia rejoins UN, OSCE. Kostunica tells European Parliament that his country wants to join EU "as soon as possible".

2000 December - Serbia's reformist alliance wins landslide victory against Socialist party of former President Milosevic in parliamentary election.

2001 January - Yugoslavia and Albania re-establish diplomatic relations broken off during the Kosovo crisis in 1999.

Former President Milosevic placed under 24-hour police surveillance in Belgrade.

2001 April - Milosevic is arrested in the early hours after a stand-off at his home. He is taken to Belgrade's main prison and charged with misappropriation of state funds and abuse of his official position. Yugoslav prosecutors say other charges will be forthcoming.

[For PaisAn]

10. Clark can handle whatever they dish out

This is how you handle the rabid rightwing manipulating media over at FAUX 'News" and elsewhere.
Check it out

http://www.lifes-abeach.com/vidclips/fnl_clark_111703_300.rm

[RamboLiberal]

12. The Repugs will attack Clark

Aren't they already trotting out "their generals" saying he was dismissed for "character" reasons?

And you know they will trot out that quote about him almost starting WWIII, and I'll bet they'll snidely refer to him as a "perfumed prince".

No Dem can escape their brownshirt tactics.

[fjc]

16. You think again,

They've already started at attempt to paint him this way, and to attack his character. As Krugman said, facts won't matter, and about that he's absolutely correct.

[DFLforever]

6. Another great article by Krugman

with a conclusion we should all study:

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.

Amen, Mr. Krugman

[He loved Big Brother]

13. Methinks we should pick our candidates based on *OUR* opinion of them

*Not* the Republicans' opinion of them.

No?

Following that strategy, Krugman is right on the money. As always.

And Dems will come out on top.

[emc]

14. hard feeling among candidates

Ive read Krugman ever since he started to write forthe NYtime's and he's right on the money this time again----If the democrats concentrate on Bush and stop destroying each other maybe we could retake the white house-----I feel personally that a Dean/Clark ticket would be a winner.The problem as I see it is, there are going to be so many hard and bitter feeling between the candidates that they wont be able to come together on the same ticket (whatever it ends up being)---and make the final drive and win the White house.

Krugman is right---this is Karl Roves dream----

[papau]

19. If only the Dem candidate is as clear as Krugman!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Who's Nader Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN


leading Democratic contenders share a lot of common ground...

domestic policy proposals are similar, and very different from those of Mr. Bush...

on foreign policy, the differences are less stark than they may appear. Wesley Clark's critiques of the Iraq war are every bit as stinging as Mr. Dean's. And looking forward, I don't believe that even the pro-war candidates would pursue the neocon vision of two, three, many Iraq-style wars. Mr. Bush, who has made preemptive war the core of his foreign policy doctrine, might do just that.

.. the Republicans will attack (as)... weak on national security ...any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman... Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

...character will also come under attack...to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault — I am not making this up — over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in "denial mode." <snip>

[GCP]

15. Krugman totally gets it - he sees the big picture

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.  

[Martin Eden]

20. Krugman hits the nail on the head

Sure, you can pick at some aspects of this column -- as was done by earlier replies in this thread -- but the main point is that...

Democrat candidates are harming their own cause and doing Karl Rove's job by attacking Dean and each other.

No, they shouldn't all stand on the stage holding hands and singing cumbaya -- they should respectfully disagree when they have diferences, and debate each other on the merits of their policies -- like responsible adults worthy of support. This is how our nominee must be seen if he expects to gain broad-based national support.

Pundits correctly bemoan the disintegration of public discourse in this country, and I am especially troubled to see it within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Let's remember that the real enemy is the radical right that controls the White House and Congress. Nothing pleases Karl Rove more than seeing a splintered and disorganized Democratic Party at each other's throats.

And let's remember that the contest for the presidency is not the only major battle -- the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate is up for election as well. A Democratic president may be able to enact major changes in foreign policy, but his domestic program would be blocked by a Republican Congress.

We have to elevate the entire Democratic Party -- not just the presidential candidate. Krugman's column was an admonition for us to get our act together, and he is absolutely correct on this. We don't have to agree on everything -- indeed, this will never happen within a party that spans from Kucinich to Lieberman -- but we have to conduct ourselves in a manner that both energizes the base and attracts swing voters.

Unfortunately, what gets shown on TV news are the soundbites in which Democrats are being criticized -- by Democrats.

[Skittles]

21. Nader is garbage

with blood on his hands