Of course Mr. Krugman has occasionally criticized Democrats in his columns, but it's usually done tactically in the context of much sharper criticism of Republicans. An example of an almost-crossover was a September 2000 column with the promising title "Gore's Tax Problems". The column does contain substantive criticism of the Gore-Lieberman economic plan, but in the end, Mr. Krugman judged the plan as "merely uninspiring" when compared to George W. Bush's "grossly irresponsible" tax plan. Relative to the rest of Mr. Krugman's NYT canon, that column qualifies as harsh treatment of Democrats. The point is not whether his views on that subject were valid, but rather that Mr. Krugman has simply been utterly unwilling to offer undiluted criticism of any Democrat, on any subject, for a span of 400 columns.

"The White House begun airing their TV commercials to re-elect the president, and the John Kerry campaign is condemning his use of 9/11 in the ads. He said, it is unconscionable to use the tragic memory of a war in order to get elected, unless of course, it's the Vietnam War." - Jay Leno

"John Kerry has promised to take this country back from the wealthy. Who better than the guy worth $700 million to take the country back? See, he knows how the wealthy think. He can spy on them at his country club, at his place in Palm Beach, at his house in the Hamptons. He's like a mole for the working man." - Jay Leno

"I'm worried about John Kerry, he's so confident now that he's already planning his White House sex scandal." - David Letterman

"John Kerry will be the Democratic nominee for president. Democrats finally found someone who is Al Gore without the flash and the sizzle." - Craig Kilborn

"Kerry has already begun his search for a running mate. They say that because John Edwards still has $50 million in campaign money, Kerry might pick him. Pick him? Hey, for $50 million, Kerry will change his position on gay marriage and marry him." - Jay Leno

"Yesterday Senator John Kerry changed his mind and now supports the ban on gay marriages. I'm telling you this guy has more positions than Paris Hilton." - David Letterman

"According to a new study, Botox injections can help back pain. So you see, that's why John Kerry had all that Botox - his back was killing him from all that flip-flopping on issues." - Jay Leno

"An Internet report claims that John Kerry had an affair with a young woman, but that she still loves him and will deny it. When asked if this was similar to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, a spokesman said 'Close, but no cigar.'" - Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live

"Over the weekend, John Kerry - the big John Kerry juggernaut moves on - he won primaries in Washington D.C., Nevada and, I think, Canada. And he's so confident that he's started nailing that intern again." - David Letterman

"The head of the AFL-CIO endorsed John Kerry, saying, 'The time has come to come behind one man, one leader, one candidate.' Then he said, 'And until we find that man, we will have to endorse John Kerry.'" - Conan O'Brien

"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." - Jay Leno

"John Kerry said today that he wants to get rid of tax cuts for the rich and his wife said, 'Hey, shut up! What's the matter with you?! Are you nuts?!'" - Jay Leno

"They had a profile of John Kerry on the news and they said his FIRST WIFE was worth around $300 million and his SECOND WIFE, his current wife, is worth around $700 million. His intern (with whom he supposedly had an affair) was worth several more million. So when John Kerry says he's going after the wealthy in this country, he's not just talking.
He's doing it!" - Jay Leno

"In his big victory speech last night, Senator Kerry said that he wanted to defeat George Bush and the 'economy of privilege.' Then he hugged his wife, Teresa, heir to the multi-million dollar Heinz food fortune." - Jay Leno

"A new poll shows that Senator Kerry's support in the South is strongest amongst blacks. Kerry's appeal to Southern blacks is obvious. He is an ultra-liberal, ultra-wealthy white man who lives far, far away." - Dennis Miller

"The big winner on Super Tuesday was Senator John Kerry. He won 39 percent of the vote, which is pretty good, and begs the question, why the long face?" - Jay Leno

"In his speech last night, John Kerry said this was the beginning of the end of the Bush administration. I agree. Sure, it will probably take another five years, but this is it." - Jay Leno

Hi! In today's column ["Krugman: Winning by Intimidation" and on NRO "The Intimidators"] paragraph 2, you write that Clarke "blam[es] everybody in the administration but himself." Actually, in the 60 Minutes interview, Clarke at least once, possibly twice, acknowledged that he probably shared blame for anti-terror failures. Click here to see his quote: "There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too."

Kerry Tatlow

Krugman acts shocked that the Bush administration has anything less than a kind word to say about the counterterrorism czar on duty on September 11, who's now saying "I told you so" and blaming everybody in the administration but himself.  Krugman quotes Vice President Dick Cheney saying Clarke was "out of the loop," and White House spokesman Scott McClellan saying it's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy." Krugman calls those gentle chides "character assassination."

Okay, then. If that's character assassination, then what do you call what Krugman does to former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in this column? In the column's first paragraph, Krugman writes:

"After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, 'need to watch what they say, watch what they do.' Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions."

Fleischer said this in response to two questions from reporters at a White House press briefing fifteen days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The first was about disparaging remarks about Sikh-Americans made by Republican congressman John Cooksey, and the second about remarks by comedian Bill Maher that American soldiers are cowards while the 9/11 terrorists were not. Fleischer said,

"...it's a terrible thing to say, and it [sic] unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

The remark simply wasn't about accepting "the administration's version of events" or about not asking "awkward questions." It was about not making racist remarks in what could be a potential lynch-mob environment -- and about not calling American soldiers cowards.

Does Krugman's vicious distortion of Fleischer's statement flatly runs afoul of the New York Time's ethics guidelines? Well, yes and no. They state: "In every case, writer and editor must both be satisfied that the intent of the subject has been preserved." What a wonderfully Timesian rule! How beautifully inward-looking! There's no requirement that the intent actually has to be preserved -- it's that people who work for the Times have to be satisfied. I have no doubt that Krugman and his editor Gail Collins are mightily satisfied.

What would Times "public editor" Daniel Okrent say? Here's a clue. He wrote about the ethics of quotations on January 4, after a Times story caused a furor by eliminating a few key words from a Bush statement on gay marriage. He said:

"...we just have to hope that quotations are rendered accurately and fairly. (Is this a shot across the bows of columnists, editorial writers and the public editor? You bet it is.)"

That means it's only a matter of time (and we hear it will be a very short time indeed) until Okrent comes out with his long-anticipated commentary on the matter of fairness, accuracy and corrections on the Times editorial page.

What, we may wonder, has taken Okrent so long? Maybe it's because the Times plays as rough with anyone who criticizes its sacred cow columnists as Krugman says the Bush administration does with its enemies.

Times executive editor Bill Keller publicly called Okrent's January 4 column "an ill-informed swipe." By Krugman's standards, that's character assassination.

And how about what Krugman himself said about me on national television -- that I "stalked" him "personally"? That's character assassination by anyone's standards.

And how about the Times sending an FBI agent to intimidate a harmless female limo driver in Cincinnati who sent Krugman an email criticizing him, which she described to me as "a 'nasty' letter with, however, ZERO threats."

And how about the Times using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to shut down a web page put up by Krugman Truth Squad member Robert Cox of the National Debate blog? The page was a perfect trompe l'oeil replica of the Times web site's corrections page -- but listing all the corrections of errors by columnists that the Times is afraid to publish (including a number of Krugman howlers that you read here first). The page is back, now bearing text that declares it is a parody.

Does it seem that a corporate policy of fear and intimidation aimed at critics is emerging here?

It's like Paul Krugman said in a recent interview on the "Lateline" show on Australian television. He was asked to react to my trademark characterization of him as "America's most dangerous liberal pundit." He said, "Well, look this is good...let them hate as long as they fear."

Sound familiar? It should. It's a quote from Emperor Caligula. And it was the title of Krugman's March 7, 2003 Times column. Krugman's called it the "perfect description of George Bush's attitude toward the world." His reaction? "...what I feel, above all, is shame."

But now? When the fear is on the other foot? "Well, look this is good..."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:50 AM | link    

Monday, March 22, 2004

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:11 PM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:29 AM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:09 AM | link    

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:05 AM | link    

Sunday, March 21, 2004

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:27 PM | link    

There's more...visit the archives!