I'm dropping Obama and going with Krugman.

[rgbecker]

Can we get him on the ticket?

He was right about the size of the stimulus; Should have been bigger.
He was right about financial reform.
He is right about the Bush tax cut extension; Giving in to the rich, sends a signal to the republicans that they can walk all over the dems. An increase in taxes will do less harm than the debt the cut extension will bring.

Obama and the Democrats can do better and should hold out. I'm writing Kerry and Brown to filibust the deal. Will the republicans stay in lock step or will the tea party favorites say NO to debt increasers? I know there is no guessing what the rag tag Democrats will do.

[Fresh_Start]

1. Don't we have 60 or so democrats

that can also filibuster without risk.
I'm talking of course of the democrats voted out of office this cycle.
They have nothing to lose and should look more principled if they chose to run again in 2 years.

[rgbecker]

8. We only need 41 to filibust.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Being right and being able to get exactly what is right done are NOT the same thing.

SO Go with Krugman......
he only talks about things.....
but gets nothing done.
Should be a great fit.

[young but wise]

3. +1

[politicasista]

24. +2 n/t

[mmonk]

5. He's an economist, not an elected official.

[FrenchieCat]

6. OP didn't seem to care if there was that difference,

or any other really.

I just responded based on posters mindset.....
I know how to make sense when I need to...
but this wasn't one of those times.

[rgbecker]

9. What, candidates have to be elected before they run?

[Telly Savalas]

12. Krugman would be the first to tell you that he doesn't have the disposition

to run for office.

I'm pretty sure he's explicitly made this point in his columns and his blog on more than one occasion.

He's a great though-provoking writer, but anyone who thinks the guy is capable of putting together a coalition of support required to win the presidency is living in fantasyland.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. You better send Obama back his letters....

...and the class ring he gave you to wear.

[Skittles]

7. he's not cute enough and doesn't give purty-enough speeches

[glitch]

13. What are you talking about, he's adorable!

Although I don't think he's a great orator, I like listening to him because I hate listening to bullshit.

[Skittles]

20. his cameo in Get Him to the Greek

I laughed so hard although it seemed to sail right over the heads of most of the very young movie audience :D

[glitch]

23. I missed that, thanks for the tip. :) nt

[Skittles]

25. it's just him in a news show Green Room

looking in bemused horror at Russell Brand's character :D

[dennis4868]

10. I am sure

Obama agrees with Krugman on everything but Krugman when he writes his editorials is not dealing with a fillubuster 24/7 in the senate and a political party (not to mention FOX News) out to destroy him....

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. If he agrees with Krugman, why isn't Krugman on his economic team?

Intead, he chose to have Goldman/Sachs for his econ team.

It has NOTHING to do with senate fililbusters and political opposition.

[dennis4868]

15. Really...

then way during the campaign was Obama out there all over the country saying that tax cuts for the wealthy is bad policy? He was saying the very things that Krugmnan was saying....

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Because he was LYING?

That is exactly why we were appalled when he chose Rahm, chose Goldman/Sachs, chose he anti-gay preacher - because those were all things he opposed during the campaign. He ran as anti-DLC (embodied by Hillary), yet chose DLC for his chief of staff. He talked Krugman economics, then appointed banksters. He vowed to be a 'fierce advocate' for gays, and cozied up to anti-gay bigots.

Maybe because he was LYING?

[dennis4868]

17. I dont care he who he chose to be on his team...

the guy ran in 2008 and then in 2010 against tax cuts for the wealthy and now that he compromises so a guy who is down on his luck with no job and no way to pay for food can get some benefits means that Obama was lying? Please tell me how you know that he was lying? Are you in his head and heart?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. I can tell he was lying by looking at his economic team appointments.

If he wanted to address the REAL problem, he could have done something about it in the fist six months of his term, when he had a solid majority in both houses. He waited until the last minute becasue he WANTED to wait till the last minute. How fucking difficult would it have been to buttonhole Pelosi and say - "let's take this issue away from the republicans in the next election by passing a bill NOW that extends the middle-class tax cuts and lets the cuts for the wealthy expire. That way, next year they won't be able to hold it over our heads."

Instead, he extends the cuts for another two years, so the Republicans can use it again against him then. He is NOT that dumb that he would have done it unless that was exactly what he wanted to do.

IOW, he's a liar.

[tabatha]

11. Galbraith disagrees with Krugman

[provis99]

18. Krugman is just a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton.

He's hated Obama since Obama knocked his favorite out of the primaries.

[Skittles]

21. seems like he had good reason to

[mmonk]

22. LOL.

Clinton is DLC. Therefore, her economics is opposed to Krugman's.