President Obama Is Not Getting The Message That He’s Not Getting The Message Out

There is something wrong  when 68% of Americans blame George W. Bush for our stinkin’ economy but only 38% have faith that President Obama’s policies will get us out of this mess.  And the something wrong is the Obama’s campaign lousy communication skills.

In 2010, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that holding Obama to one term was job one.  What’s ironic about that statement is that it’s the only job the Republicans have created since gaining control of Congress that year.  The Republicans have blocked every job initiative Obama introduced, have refused to pass his budgets except for the idiot compromise that kept the Republicans from pushing the U.S. into default and created the dead in the womb so-called Super Committee.

I’ve read that Obama attempts to fly above the fray but the problem is he’s also flying above the heads of the independent and disgruntled Republican voters.  Karl Rove and Fox know how fly right into the bread basket of the average uneducated voter and fill them with alarm and rage over Obama while framing the Republicans as the great white hope,  and then using hatred of gays to bring in segments of black and Hispanic voters.

The Obama campaign should be buying up even more ad time than Rove and Sheldon Adelson can afford and starting ads with McConnell’s pronouncement, followed by video of every jobs bill, or labor friendly initiative and show how the Republicans stopped them all through “No” votes and filibusters.  One after another over the course of a 30-60 second spot.  Do another spot with a side-by-side comparison of Obamacare with Romneycare to show how identical they are. Follow that with interviews with parents of children who can now get health insurance for them, seniors getting help filling the Medicare Part D donut hole,  and business owners  telling how Obamacare has saved them money and helped their employees and their businesses.

But no, all the Obama campaign is offering is attack ads against Romney which are not that effective.  Romney remains behind Obama in the polls because most people don’t like Romney.  Except to his most avid and brain-dead supporters,  people can see him for the elitist phony that he is.

The non-Fox news channels are ineffective at getting Obama’s message out as well.  Process junkies like MSNBC’s Chuck Todd love to post the daily polls (along with the daily White House soup of the day (?)), showing that Obama’s in trouble over unemployment and the economy but he refuses to analyze why that is, which would open the door to again recapping the Republican intransigence in Congress which has effectively blocked every Obama move with the knowledge the media would blame Obama and provide plenty of air time to Republicans to push this fallacy on the malleable uneducated voters who can be swayed to vote Republican against their own best self interests.

It’s a mystery why Obama the candidate was such a superb salesman but Obama the President  is struggling to close the deal, at least according to the latest opinion polls.

And that’s something else the Obama campaign is missing the boat on. Media guys like Todd are so enamored of daily polls which show Romney close to Obama.  The Obama campaign could run ads showing poll after poll where Obama leads Romney nationally, with women, students, ethnic minorities.  They could simplify the concept of polls and show how national polls don’t matter anyway because the presidency will be decided by individual state election results.

At this point, Obama’s message is bottled up.  In order to win in November, he’ll have to get it in an easy-to-digest format the malleable uneducated voters can understand so that they’re swayed to vote for him.  The only time a message in a bottle was a success was for The Police.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “President Obama Is Not Getting The Message That He’s Not Getting The Message Out

  1. James McPherson says:

    “Media guys like Todd are so enamored of daily polls which show Romney close to Obama.”
    Indeed — because an election that isn’t “close” is too boring to draw viewers. But as you noted, the polls that matter most indicate that the election won’t be that close, regardless of how many times those in the media say it will be: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/pre-memorial-day-2012-presidential-election-projection-obama-wins-handily/

  2. shelley1laysi says:

    Great POV …thought provoking sounds like solid possibilities. Did you forward to Obama’s main guy?

  3. Obama is a puppet and now his puppet masters want Romney it seems, socialism doesn’t work. You cannot steal from one person and give to another, it ruins both groups, kills incentive and breeds corrupt politicians. Bow down before Obamney and light your candles and worship, that is what you are doing it seems.

  4. By the way, you can read Marxist literature and get all the Obamney messages you want. Leave our constitution alone and keep your democracy and our republic is going to come out of this just fine.

  5. G says:

    Many Americans are getting their news from sources other than TV nowadays. As more Americans become engaged in the political process and do their own thinking, conservative principles will continue to win out. That is why you see so many establishment Republicans getting voted out in the primaries – losing to true conservatives. I’m not saying Romney is a true conservative, but people do know that Obama is not. Obama will probably lose by an embarrassing margin come November.

    • farlefty says:

      Greatly disagree with you. Today’s “conservatives” get most of their misinformation from TV like Fox, or from Fox Radio or non-Fox right wing propagandists like Limbaugh and Beck.

      There are no true conservatives running the Republican Party anymore. A true conservative would be a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. A conservative would support in gay marriage, abortion, allowing Muslims to build mosques where they choose to. A true conservative would oppose the PATRIOT Act, federal and local breaking down doors and arresting people without a warrant, and a president waging war without an official Congressional declaration of war.

      Your political prediction shows that you are not a true conservative if you consider yourself a Republican. It also shows you know nothing about politics other than the propaganda you are fed from right-wing controlled media, whether it be TV (which I’m sure you watch), radio, and your carefully-selected right wing propaganda websites like Drudge Report, the Blaze, Fox, and others not worthy of acknowledging here.

      Obama’s re-election in November should bring you joy: you will have the opportunity to hate our first black president for four more years. It will give your life purpose that it would otherwise lack.

      • G says:

        The hyperbole of “get all your news from Fox” gets so old. There is too much information available to waste time with TV.

        There is nobody running the Republican Party right now, which is a good thing. Lots of competing ideas underneath one large tent.

        There are lots of Republicans that are not against gay marriage, but gay marriage faces bipartisan opposition any many ways. (Personally could care less). Many Republicans are against many parts of the Patriot Act, just as they are opposed to the Defense Authorization Act. (Which they should be on both counts).

        I link just some of the sites I visit on my blog if you’d like to take a look. It is obvious that you know very little about what conservatives in this country truly believe. I’ll check in with you in November and compare notes.

      • farlefty says:

        What you call a hyperbole is is actually factual for most people who call themselves Republicans nowadays and respond to liberal posts. I read the same talking points every single time. Yeah, Fox only gets about 3 million viewers a day but the angrier ones who watch it, even if they’re just a few hundred thousand, are the ones motivated to troll behavior on liberal blogs and FB pages. Your prediction that Obama will surely lose is typical and not based on any stats or polls that mean anything at this point. It is purely emotional on your part and not deserving of serious discussion unless you have facts and trends on which to base your statement.

        There are lots of Republicans that are against gay marriage? Where are their letters to the editor? Where are their calls to radio and TV conservative and liberal talk shows? Of course, the term “lots of” doesn’t necessarily mean the majority of Republicans feel this way, but in the aggregate, the majority of AMERICANS–Dems, Repubs, Indies, liberal, conservative–support gay marriage. Problem is YOUR Republican Party is pandering to the haters and bigots to bring out the few hundred thousand they think can put Romney over the top. They are playing for the fringe vote, that is, if they can’t manufacture votes like they did in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004.

        And where are the Republicans decrying the USA PATRIOT Act in the media? The sound you hear is nothing because I haven’t heard any–except for the occasional Republican calling a liberal talk show to do them they’ve lost faith in their party because it was highjacked by the loony right. I can tell you however, from my participation in liberal groups and watching/listening to liberal media, plenty of Democrats are in an uproar over Obama’s assault on the Constitution and our civil liberties. The Republican strength is in its unity of message. You guys have lined up behind among the worst presidential candidates in history besides George W. Bush. us Democrats unfortunately hardly ever display a unified front because are are the big tent where everyone is welcome, and since we don’t watch or listen to Fox, we’re smarter than at least 3 million people a day.

        As for checking out your blog, what the hell? You checked mine out, I’ll return the favor.

      • G says:

        I agree that there was not enough Republican outspokenness to the Patriot Act, but as it was so close on the heals of 9/11, I believe that strongly influenced. If that Act came out today from a Republican, I do not believe it would be supported much.

        Pandering to hate? Nah. Republicans are pro-immigration, just anti-illegal immigration. Republicans have always been the party of freedom and equality, the party of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party is the party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation.

        My opinion on Obama losing in a landslide is based partially on polls. His job approval rating is 45% and 53% disapprove. Normally, a incumbent president receives a percentage of the vote comparable to his approval rating. Undecided voters historically break against the incumbent. With most swing states within the margin of error, if most undecideds break for Romney, he will win going away.

        Of course, there is a lot of things that could happen between now and then, so much can change. If a Libertarian candidate is able to get into the presidential debates and become a viable candidate, Obama could win a plurality. If something unknown about Romney comes out or he makes a horrendous gaffe, he could still lose a close election.

      • farlefty says:

        If you’re following the polls now then 1) you’re not following the right polls, 2) you don’t understand how to analyze them. There is not one poll out there that shows Romney trending to beat Obama, unless it’s a right wing-sponsored poll. And every single pundit who knows what they’re talking about (which leaves out right wing pundits) advise we are way too far out from November to be giving any weight to polls now. National polls are meaningless anyway since the election comes down to the individual states. Ever hear of something called the electoral college? Delegates are elected state by state? This is Obama’s election to lose, not Romney’s to win. Your ideology is showing, and that’s why you lack credibility.

        I want to take you seriously, I really do. But when you make a comment such as “If a Libertarian candidate is able to get into the presidential debates and become a viable candidate”) we’re back to your lack of political knowledge and credibility. What you wrote is codespeak for Ron Paul–who is no way in hell a Libertarian. He is a moderately successful crackpot Republican who is way past the age of the American voter’s consent to be President. Reagan was pushing it at his age and he was only elected because of the massive and wealthy political machine who sold him to gullible voters back in the 1980’s. Paul’s got nothing behind him except some advisors who know how to maneuver within the GOP for a bit of leverage at the upcoming convention. Any libertarian is outside the mainstream, and making such a comment leads me to believe that you are as well.

        Republicans have NEVER been pro-immigration (officially) when it comes to Hispanics–and officially is the operative word. They’re fine with it when it comes to low-wage farm or service workers, and perhaps go on record as supporting work visas for highly paid Asian or Russian tech workers who supplant Americans in the computer tech field. But in 40 years the GOP has never pushed to improve immigration laws to promote legal immigration. Reagan did his amnesty thing, which guaranteed a large supply of low wage workers–that’s it. The Republicans pander to hatred of Hispanics (opposition to the DREAM Act) and to contend otherwise again shows your lack of political knowledge.

        As for the PATRIOT Act, there was no American outcry for the law–it was pushed through by Dick Cheney and the Democrats caved to what they perceived as American insistence on Draconian and despotic solutions to a modern Pearl Harbor attack. It was beltway fever all the way. The fact that Obama has extended the range of the law further disgusts and angers me. Hey–look at that! I just wrote a criticism of Obama. That makes me fair and balanced. And that gives me credibility. You should try it sometime.

      • G says:

        I primarily look at Rasmussen as I have found them to be among the most consistent with polling likely voters and having small margins for the split between D’s & R’s polled. I agree that we are way too far away from November for it to matter all that much now.

        You have no desire to take me seriously. It is evident that you prefer to deal with thoughts contrary to your own with immature snarks. The Libertarian Candidate I referenced was Gary Johnson. If he is able to gain access to the Presidential Debates, he could very well take enough votes away from Romney for Obama to win. He would take votes away from Obama as well, but not as many as from Romney.

        Mainstream Republicans hate race-baiting, and hate when individuals are treated differently based on their race, but otherwise could care less what someone’s race is. As the Republican Martin Luther King Jr. said, judge people “by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”

        I said that 9/11 influenced the acceptance of the Patriot Act and you agree when you say “American insistence on… solutions to a modern Pearl Harbor attack.” You agreed with me, but you still want to argue with me about it. That indicates you do not care about what is right, but rather who is right.

        I consider myself a Tea Party leaning person. That movement was birthed without that moniker when Bush and all the establishment politicians (including Obama) supported the 1st bailout and TARP. The 2nd bailout and the take over of our health care set the movement ablaze. I support scaling back government, creating term limits, and ending the crony Keynesianism that takes place in DC from both parties.

      • farlefty says:

        Rassmussen polls agree with your point of view. That’s all. They do not reflect mainstream thought when compared to other national polls. That being said, all national polling is meaningless. Polls can be rigged to support any conclusion the pollster wishes to publish. The only effective polling is exit polling on election day. Exit polling provided evidence that the Bush team stole the 2000 & 2004 presidential elections.

        You lean towards the Tea Party? That again shows your complete lack of knowledge about economics since that is endemic among teabaggers (which I’m officially calling you now despite what I wrote in my other response to you). A true teabagger would have deplored TARP as corporate welfare at its worst. But teabaggers are anything but true so you genuflect to corporate power and greed cuz you think you’ll get your share of both someday. Silly geese.

        Scaling back government? If you know how to interpret stats, and I can clearly see you don’t, check out how government and spending grew during the Reagan and both Bushies years. And I advise you actually read up on Keynes so you understand what you oppose. I bet that you never took one econ class that taught you the history and difference between global economic systems. After you read Keynes, then answer me how Friedman’s economic theories would have rebuilt the American economy after World War II? Show me real world examples of thriving world economies under Chicago School-trained economists. Don’t forget to explain the reason for the overthrow of democratically-elected leaders and the repression and violence that presided every enactment of Friedman economics worldwide, except in this country where people are easily distracted from the loss of their rights and income by shiny new tech objects. Please explain why in every country Friedman economics was enacted, the poverty numbers increased, unemployment increased, the small wealthy class got wealthier (bad English intentional, unlike teabaggers) and more powerful, despots were deposited into power, the environment was trashed, government services were privatized which made the wealthier even more wealthier, and unions were disbanded and union activists imprisoned, disappeared, or murdered. Oh yeah, being a teabagger all that is fine with you, especially the anti-union and privatization stuff. OK then, explain why that’s all OK with you.

        Re: The PATRIOT Act, it seems you don’t support it so that means at least on that one subject you have a grasp of reality. But that is a slim grasp because in a similar future situation with a Repugnant-con like Bush or Romney as president, reactionary totalitarian laws would always be proposed because that is the Repug Party of today. 9/11 was just a tool to engineer a power grab by the Bush crowd. There was no popular call for such a draconian law, and the weak-kneed, lily-livered Democrats bent over and took it up the ass lest they be shown by Repugs to be weak-kneed and lily-livered on terrorism. Oh wow, I just criticized my own party again! All we’ve gotten from you about the Repugs is a tepid remark about how they were not outspoken enough about the PATRIOT Act. What a blow to their solar plexus! Let me explain basic politics to you: Congressional Repugs almost always march in lockstep(notice I wrote ALMOST always); that is their strength and the advantage they have over Democrats. With the original vote on the act, any Repug who opposed it kept silent and then abstained from voting so he could tell his constituents that he didn’t vote against it. That’s the Repug way. Repugs only oppose each other behind the scenes and away from the cameras and microphones. Publicly, they’re all of one mind, which is unfortunate since that mind is mentally diseased.

      • G says:

        I’d rather be a T-bagger than a D-bagger.

        Okay. I. am. going. to. talk. slowly.

        The Tea Party movement was born in protest to TARP. What part of that do you not understand? TARP was corruption at it’s worst. The bailouts go against everything America should stand for.

        Have you noticed how the Tea Party has been throwing Republicans out of office left and right? It is because the grass root movement does not believe in party labels, but they do believe in what Republicans are supposed to stand for. The movement is a Libertarian movement from within the Republican Party. Tea Party folk do not have blind loyalty to party affiliation.

      • farlefty says:

        OK, I’ll answer you in very simple terms because you still don’t understand politics. The Tea Party started as protest against TARP then quickly allowed itself to be co-opted by the very group they were protesting against. That’s how simple-minded they are.

        Where you lose your grasp of politics is when you claim the teabaggers have been throwing Republicans out of office left and right. Every teabagger who was elected to Congress, to governorships, to state houses, had an (R) after their name. If your teabaggers were serious about political reform, they wouldn’t be working within the Party and taking money from the very contributors they were protesting against in the first place. Teabaggers are very much involved with the Republican Party, and they very much idolize Grover Norquist, a mainstream Republican from the 70’s. An

        And try doing some research before you make another stupid comment. Every Republican voted out of office by teabaggers in 2010 had a history of negotiation and compromising with Democrats. Every one. Teabaggers are so ideological that they don’t understand or don’t care about how government is designed to function in an ideal democratic society. You’re like petulant children if you don’t get your way who go off sulking in a corner, planning revenge. The Republicans who truly valued a representative democratic government chose to retire than to put up with the 2010 class of rich spoiled brats who’s only intent is to screw the middle class and the poor if they don’t get their way, which is to screw the middle class and the poor.

        Name one jobs bill the Republicans have introduced since 2010. One.

        Your argument doesn’t pass the laugh test.

        I won’t even bother to respond to your next response because, as in dealing with all right wing ideologues, there is no possibility of debate. What you consider facts aren’t, the fact that you bought into the Tea Party myth shows your gullibility, and every response you posted shows you have no interest at looking at politics, this nation, and the world realistically. Every liberal I discuss issues with is able to back up their opinions with facts when we disagree and they can also change my mind on an issue when their argument is intelligent, well thought out, and backed up with solid research and facts.

        Glad you enjoy this forum and please keep reading my blog. However, this is the last time I will interact or post any of your comments. If you prefer to wallow in fabrication and simple thinking, stick with the right wing websites and blogs. The issues that face us, brought about primarily by Republicans, are too serious for me to indulge someone like you who is out of his depth when discussing how to resolve problems. You’re on the side of the guys creating them.

  6. farlefty says:

    G–tried to leave a reply on your Land Of Tea blog but your blog page doesn’t recognize I’m logged in so I’ll give you my opinion of your page here. I couldn’t get past your first line before I was laughing too hard to continue.Your whole take on Obama’s argument which claim you refuted as bogus is deserving of laughter if you seriously think you refuted anything. The size of the public debt is indeed linked to income inequality. To deny this is to reveal yourself as an ideologue as distinguished from a serious political blogger. The Republicans have a two-point economic plan: 1.No taxes on the rich and corporations. 2. No government regulations on business. That’s it. Abortion, religion, gay marriage, immigration, gun laws–all fluff and window dressing to bring the geeks in to the Republican tent show. To just wipe away with the back of your hand the historical size of the deficit caused by Bush, and the continued refusal of Boehner, McConnell, and the Congressional teabaggers to seriously deal with deficit reduction–choosing to play politics at the expense of the economic recovery of this country–displays your total lack of credibility. But then, anyone can write a blog and post anything they want. You prove that.

    • G says:

      That article I wrote discussing income inequality and income mobility that was linked in the first line of my most recent post provides additional links to statistics on the subject that are provided by the United States Treasury. The article also contains analysis by Economists Dr. Daniel J. Smith, Chris Coyne, and Dr. Steven Horwitz. It references directly-related quotations from John Adams and Abraham Lincoln.

      I have not seen the link clicked in recent days in my stats, so I am doubtful you took the time to actually investigate it before opining. I invite all your readers to check it out and decide for themselves.

      • farlefty says:

        Your choice of economists once again shows how your ideology rules where you get your carefully-selected information from. I never heard of any of these guys, and they are never on any mainstream news or talk show and not one liberal talk show host as ever mentioned their names. But you sought them out and are influenced by them. Where are your references to Paul Krugman or Robert Reich? Ah, I’m sure you view them as Communist Socialists (those terms are totally misunderstood and interchangeable to libertarians and Republicans) and Krugman’s Nobel Prize was bought and paid for, right? This shows again your (altogether now) lack of credibility. I should make a shortcut key for that phrase just to cut down on my keystrokes when writing my comments about you.

        I don’t know how you have your stats tracker configured, but you just get some tech help with it. I clicked on the link a few times to go to your blog. Even though I was logged in to wordpress, your page was set up so that I was required to enter my email address and a password in order to leave a comment. There is no other wordpress blog that I read that requires that. If I’m logged in, I can leave a comment. I won’t jump through whatever hoop you have placed on your page just to tell you what I tell you here–that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Your problem is that everything you read and hear is filtered through your right wing ideology so that you choose what you choose to believe. Yes, everyone does that, but some of us more enlightened minds prefer to deal with facts and history. I’ve got a good grasp of how you think without having to read your blog because that first line of your blog I quoted earlier said it all. You seek out right wing extremist sources of opinions to validate your own right wing extremist opinions. No one who is grounded in truth and reality would ever support Mitt Romney for president or even think he had a chance of getting elected without a billion dollars in media ad buys and a 24/7 propaganda TV/radio machine behind him. Obama has serious problems with holding onto the liberal side of his base, and I have issues with several of his policies, but he’s a damn fine president compared to the purchased hack Romney would be in the White House.

        If you knew anything about econ, which you obviously don’t based on the economists you named, you’d know that the economy has rebounded under Obama and unemployment would be at least 4 points lower if the Republicans hadn’t blocked all Obama and Dem jobs bills, hadn’t thrown a tantrum over the raising the debt ceiling (a carefully planned and calculated tantrum), and all the other obstructionist plays they’ve made. They don’t give a shit about you or any Americans except the ones that pay them to stay in office. And you fall for all of this. Lack of knowledge and credibility strike again.

      • G says:

        Dr. Daniel J. Smith is a professor of economics at Troy University. Chris Coyne is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Dr. Steve Horwitz is a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University. Milton Friedman is also a Nobel Prize winner in economics and his views run contrary to Krugman’s. Nobel Economist Thomas Sargent often slams Krugman’s views too. Most economists disagree with Krugman. Tis true I think Krugman is a political hack. He reminds me of the phrase, “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” I base that off of researching his views and finding that many of them did not hold up to scrutiny.

        I appreciate you pointing out the name and email requirement for leaving a comment on my site. I removed it. Not sure why it would require you to be logged in. I don’t have that checked.

      • farlefty says:

        I knew you would go Milton Friendman on me. Milton Friedman’s Nobel Prize was highly and rightfully criticized. Friedman never met the economy of a country that he didn’t flush down the toilet. There’s a reason why Friedman and the Chicago School’s economic theories could only be enforced at the end of gun barrel and with the imprisonment and deaths of 100s of 1000s of people. And it would take lies, damn lies, and “massaged” statistics to attempt to show Reagan’s supply side economics worked. And you call Paul Krugman a hack. I cannot stand people who place ideology in front of wisdom. The fact that Friedman got a Nobel Prize devalues the Nobel Prize awarded to Krugman. That fact that you think Krugman is a hack speaks for itself about your political bias and your lack of grasp on reality. Your problem is you’re an ideologue; you’re like a teenager who’s convinced that he he is smarter than his parents when in reality, the teenager doesn’t know enough to know that he doesn’t know that much. That describes you to a tee.

        I appreciate you replying to my responses to you because I am actually writing my comments about you for others to read, not for your benefit alone. You’re no different than a right wing troll who infest liberal Facebook pages and liberal sites in general. The only difference with you is that you can actually write using proper Englisn grammar and spelling. That is very rare in a right wing teabagger these days. Their lack of intelligence is central to why they’re right wing teabaggers. Not that I’m calling you a teabagger, yet…

  7. G says:

    I understand you are censoring my views from your blog, so I suppose I will have to settle for sharing this information with just you. I do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to debate our views and the forum you so graciously provided. Again, I’m being sincere.

    Those within the Tea Party movement recognize that a previous similar anti-establishment movement led to the running of Ross Perot and a split of the Republican vote. The lesson was learned which is why this movement is from within the Republican party.

    Of course there is a battle of ideas within the Republican party and many groups within attempting to influence the Tea Party movement. Which is as it should be.

    The Tea Party has been throwing out establishment Republicans who have been complicit with cronyism between government and businesses. It is no coincidence they had worked with Democrats on the cronyism policies.

    You wanted a jobs bill introduced by Republicans in the last couple years, so here are a few:

    Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act)
    Jobs Through Growth Act
    Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act
    Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act

    I forgot to respond earlier to your claim that the only polling that is accurate is exit polling. Did you see that exit polling in the Wisconsin recall elections had it dead even, but 45 minutes later, Scott Walker won in a landslide?

    Why do you give Krugman so much credit and cite his Nobel as evidence of his credibility, but then discount Thomas Sargent who won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2011? Or Robert Lucas Jr. who is an American Professor at the University of Chicago and also won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 1995? Both of those Nobel Laureates have findings that run counter to Krugman’s philosophies.

    • farlefty says:

      I’m not censoring your views; I just stopped reading and responding to them. Look–because I responded to you here, others get to read what you wrote. There art thou happy.

      I discount the other two economists because Krugman is right and they’re wrong. Friedman won a Nobel Prize which also doesn’t mean a thing. I would be a fan of Krugman’s even if he didn’t have any awards on his mantle.

      This is my final response. Open up your blog to everyone and I’ll respond to you there.

      • G says:

        The comments section on my blog is open now. If you have difficulty posting, please let me know. Thanks.

Comments are closed.