In his latest diatribe, “The Blackmail Caucus,” New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, personifies the arrogance and mean-spirited perspective of the know-it-all liberal commentator. This time, Krugman accuses Republicans of being blackmailers. Pretty inflammatory, I’d say. This country is never going to settle its political differences with a Democratic spokesman like Krugman constantly stirring up the pot. He made some particularly interesting comments in his piece that should be considered by all voters.
“The starting point for many ‘vote for Romney or else’ statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his second term.” Yes, yes, yes, Mr. Krugman. This is what Republicans and many Democrats and independents believe. Given that the first four Obama years were marked by ineffective government, why would America give the president any additional time in the White House?
If elected, Obama’s terrible relationship with Congress, and the opposition in general, will make it impossible for him to be an effective administrator during the next four years. He launched his populist and one-sided crusade with health care reform, where he ignored Republicans right out of the box. He then orchestrated class warfare, and tore the country apart. Unlike other presidents facing strong opposition, Obama has not been able to undo partisanship that he ignited; nor has been able to negotiate any meaningful legislation during his tenure.
“But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not — but so what? America isn’t facing any kind of short term fiscal crisis . . .” This is precisely why Obama is an impotent president; he cannot negotiate with Congress, not now and not in one, two, three or four years. Moreover, the importance of a Grand Bargain is totally understated by Krugman. Certainly, it is not a problem that we can keep kicking down the road. The national debt is currently at $16 trillion, and will increase greatly in a few years if spending is not curtailed and/or revenues are not increased. Moreover, a Grand Bargain and the “fiscal cliff” are now linked together and may need to be resolved as one. Surely, no one believes that the fiscal cliff is something we want threatening our economy any longer.
“So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done.” Wow, a president who cannot “get things done.” This is not the type of president America should have at this moment in history.
“Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So yes, there is a case that ‘partisan gridlock’ would be less damaging if Romney won.” Well, there you have it. Surrender by Krugman on one of the most important issues facing this country — partisanship. It has been documented frequently that Romney was, in fact, able to negotiate with a Democratic majority in the Massachusetts legislature when he was governor. America needs someone who can work across the aisle. If voters agree that governmental gridlock is a problem, their chose is clear.
Mr. Krugman cynically points out that the Des Moines Register believes that Romney “would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims . . . that, in office, Romney would be far more centrist . . .” Romney’s celebrated move to the center after the primaries is a tried and true tactic perfected by none other than Bill Clinton. The important thing to note is that centrism is what this country needs to bring it together. And, Romney is a deal-maker extraordinaire.
It is good to see one of the most extreme people on the liberal side write with so much desperation. I guess the polls are not giving Democrats very much comfort. This election could go either way on Tuesday.