Quoting harkin: Paul Krugman on the tea parties in August:

"Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there's no comparison. I've gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can't find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.....

......So this is something new and ugly."

A new and ugly Paul Krugman this week:

"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy."

So nice to see him pandering to the mob.

Wonder what he thought of the riots at some of the California universities recently over tuition increases.

Way to quote out of context, harkin. And your dishonesty is only accentuated by your failure to provide a link. Anyone who's not a wingnut will have no trouble understanding what Krugman meant in context.

The difference between Klein's comments about Lieberman and Palin's Death Panel nonsense is that Klein had the goods. His post linked to a study demonstrating that lack of health insurance kills tens of thousands of Americans every year; it pointed out Lieberman's recent support for the measure that he now finds intolerable, it noted that the Medicare Buy-in hadn't received a CBO score when lieberman made his announcement, etc. etc. etc. Klein used an understanding of the facts that Lieberman would have agreed with 3 months ago and that are supported by the CBO and actual scientific research, then used those premises to point out what Lieberman was doing. Did matt attempt to rebut any of this? of course not; why bother when you can complain about rhetoric and draw false equivalence? This is Matt Lewis at his most hackish.

Quoting bjkeefe: Way to quote out of context, harkin. And your dishonesty is only accentuated by your failure to provide a link.

Anyone who's not a wingnut will have no trouble understanding what Krugman meant in context.

The instruction to hang in effigy does not require any context. It means the same thing every time no matter how many words you pile around it. And by all means pass the bill, no matter how crappy it is!

Quoting badhatharry: The instruction to hang in effigy does not require any context. It means the same thing every time no matter how many words you pile around it.

And by all means pass the bill, no matter how crappy it is!

That is manifestly not true. Shouted at a rally in a croud of angry people, even if it's not intended literally, it could easily be heard that way - not as rhetoric, but as a call to action. If anybody who has ever read Krugman (or polemics in any major opinion organ by just about anybody who writes for such things, in this country) doesn't recognize a clear metaphor there, they're either stupid (which harkin is not) or willing to make a plainly dishonest comparison for the sake of trying to score a rhetorical point.

Klein says that not getting health care reform passed will cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Palin calls rationed care and end of life counseling death panels. This rhetoric has gotten so out of hand and ubiquitous that we don’t question it any more. What is clear is that it exists on both sides and what is interesting is the tolerance people show towards their side’s rhetoric. I wonder if anyone on the left thought this thing would turn out the way it has. The dems are in such disarray....."pass the bill, kill the bill". I think the main problem was over-reach. It would have been so much better had the changes they worked for been targeted and incremental. Change was certainly in order.

Quoting badhatharry: Klein says that not getting health care reform passed will cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Palin calls rationed care and end of life counseling death panels. This rhetoric has gotten so out of hand and ubiquitous that we don’t question it any more. What is clear is that it exists on both sides and what is interesting is the tolerance people show towards their side’s rhetoric.

I wonder if anyone on the left thought this thing would turn out the way it has. The dems are in such disarray....."pass the bill, kill the bill". I think the main problem was over-reach. It would have been so much better had the changes they worked for been targeted and incremental. Change was certainly in order.

Yeah, it was inevitable. Health care reform stirs up extreme forces in backlash, because of the scale of the interests involved. The only thing to hope for right now, I thunk, is to get the camel's nose into the tent. By the way, it's certainly true that thousands of people die under the current system, simply because they have no access to treatment. For instance, there is

Quoting AemJeff: That is manifestly not true. Shouted at a rally in a croud of angry people, even if it's not intended literally, it could easily be heard that way - not as rhetoric, but as a call to action. If anybody who has ever read Krugman (or polemics in any major opinion organ by just about anybody who writes for such things, in this country) doesn't recognize a clear metaphor there, they're either stupid (which harkin is not) or willing to make a plainly dishonest comparison for the sake of trying to score a rhetorical point.

This is splitting hairs to be sure. I just like to disagree with Keefe, especially when he calls people liars (which you did, too. shame on you). However, shouting it at a rally of angry people is not that much different than saying it in an article. What Krugman was saying is" I know you're angry and it would be justified if you wanted to make an effigy of Lieberman and hang it. In fact go ahead, make the image and hang it if it makes you feel better, but in the meantime, don't get in the way of passing

Quoting AemJeff: By the way, it's certainly true that thousands of people die under the current system, simply because they have no access to treatment. For instance, there is no such thing as generic insulin. Many diabetics are unable to afford the fundamental treatment for their condition, and die unecessarily of diabetic complications for that simple reason. The assertion that people are dying because of the current system isn't hard to prove.

So there is no mechanism for a person who can't afford insulin to get it?

Quoting badhatharry: So there is no mechanism for a person who can't afford insulin to get it?

It depends on the details of their situation. There are many people who don't get it.

Quoting badhatharry: The instruction to hang in effigy does not require any context. It means the same thing every time no matter how many words you pile around it.

I'm not surprised you weren't able to discern the difference and pick up that Krugman was being completely sarcastic to those on the left. I am pretty sure you would be going on at length about the distinction, if this had been some wingnut columnist who was speaking to your side, however.

So lame to pull out "there you go again" to get out of having to actually defend your position or admit you're wrong. Of course a hard core ideologue would never admit he's wrong about anything, so one must resort to ridiculous lines about how the death panels would kill as many people as 30 million fewer people not having health care does, and how we lose our freedom if we provide health insurance to said 30 million people. Of course it has to be paid for somehow, just like everything does--its a question of how and if we as a society, i.e. voters in a democracy, decide its worth it to do that. I thought conservatives love democracy--well, that's how it works (of course the influence of big corporate and wealthy donors campaign contributions, etc. makes it work in a less than pure manner, which is of course why right-wingers want to get big money out of politics). There's always a tension between our freedoms and our responsibilities to each other, so its a question of where we draw that line. I.e., someone besides people who can't afford it pays

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not surprised you weren't able to discern the difference and pick up that Krugman was being completely sarcastic to those on the left.

I am pretty sure you would be going on at length about the distinction, if this had been some wingnut columnist who was speaking to your side, however.

Oh! so Krugman was saying that all you liberals are way too classy to hang anyone in effigy. There are so many layers here!
Actually, I take whatever any columnist says with a grain of salt. These guys get paid to turn up the heat.

Quoting benjy: So lame to pull out "there you go again" to get out of having to actually defend your position or admit you're wrong.......

I was wondering who you were addressing and then I remembered Matt's Regan quote...... I think he was refering to the change of subject Tim made. But that doesn't really matter.
I think you made some good points in your post. I agree that it really is all about where the line needs to be drawn or where it is best to draw it. I disagree, however, that this forum isn't full of the kind of discussion you are encouraging. Maybe this one isn't, but that may be because both diavloggers are already assuming that we basically know their positions on things.

Quoting badhatharry: Oh! so Krugman was saying that all you liberals are way too classy to hang anyone in effigy. There are so many layers here!
Actually, I take whatever any columnist says with a grain of salt. These guys get paid to turn up the heat.

Hard to believe anyone could be so thick. But maybe you're just being disingenuous.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hard to believe anyone could be so thick. But maybe you're just being disingenuous.

Yeah, that's probably it. What ever you said.

Quoting badhatharry:

Quoting bjkeefe: Hard to believe anyone could be so thick. But maybe you're just being disingenuous.

Yeah, that's probably it. What ever you said.

Couldn't even understand those two sentences, huh? Too used to being told exactly what to think by Rush and Fox, I guess.

Quoting Don Zeko: The difference between Klein's comments about Lieberman and Palin's Death Panel nonsense is that Klein had the goods. His post linked to a study demonstrating that lack of health insurance kills tens of thousands of Americans every year; it pointed out Lieberman's recent support for the measure that he now finds intolerable, it noted that the Medicare Buy-in hadn't received a CBO score when lieberman made his announcement, etc. etc. etc. Klein used an understanding of the facts that Lieberman would have agreed with 3 months ago and that are supported by the CBO and actual scientific research, then used those premises to point out what Lieberman was doing. Did matt attempt to rebut any of this? of course not; why bother when you can complain about rhetoric and draw false equivalence? This is Matt Lewis at his most hackish.

I think this is right to the extent that you can show that Lieberman's support of various policies included the talking point that opposition meant support for death, etc. I don't know if that's the case. I do think he's an ass given that the evidence I've seen demonstrates that his current

Quoting stephanie: I think this is right to the extent that you can show that Lieberman's support of various policies included the talking point that opposition meant support for death, etc. I don't know if that's the case.

Well I guess we're arguing semantics here, unless I get the free time to root through Lieberman's old speeches on the subject, but I think that Ezra demonstrates pretty conclusively that a) Lieberman's newfound opposition to these measures is driven by spite and an indifference to the effects of the policy, and that b) the provisions Lieberman is stripping from the bill would save many people's lives if they were included, and also that c) Lieberman has presented himself to his voters as someone who believes that b) is true. That sounds to me like a pretty solid justification for what Klein wrote.