| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41245 Activity:kinda low |
1/5 BTW, the O'Reilly vs. Krugman exchange did happen on Russert's show. A
conservative's analysis is that O'Reilly proved Krugman to be the liar.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp
Full transcript of the exchange can be found:
http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html
\_ Donald Luskin is not a useful data point on anything.
\_ When I read it and the full transcript, his comments appeared to
be on target. So actually he is. And you're simply wrong.
\_ Bob Somerby's breakdown: http://dailyhowler.com/dh081004.shtml
Luskin only makes sense if you think O'Reilly is an honest
debater/knows what he's talking about.
\_ And here I thought we're keeping an open mind about things.
\_ About ideas. Not liars.
\_ It depends on what the meaning of "disastrous" is
\_ I don't get his logic.
O'Reilley says "Krugman said X in this book"
Krugman says "I never said X in the book"
This article then digs up a New York Times column where Krugman
says X. Um, weren't we talking about a book here? What does this
prove exactly?
\_ It depends on what the meaning of X is.
\_ No it doesn't at all. If I say "I never said X in this
book I wrote" it's not the same as saying "I never said X"
\_ Okay, please identify what X is.
\_ IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT X IS.
\_ unless, of course, in your "I don't get his
logic" post, you have incorrectly used X, X,
X, when it's really something like X, X, Y; or,
if you really wanted to get into it, the whole
exchange probably involves about 4-6 letters.
\_ Whether X matters depends on whether you care
about substance or form. Let's try an
example. Let's say Bush says in a radio address,
"I lied when I said I had intelligence about WMD
in Iraq." Later, Kerry says, "Bush said in a
televised address he lied when he said he had
intelligence about WMD in Iraq". Now, the Bush
supporters might say Kerry was wrong, and they
would be right, since Kerry said televised
address instead of radio. But most people might
think that the mistake is trivial, and it's the
content of Bush's address that is of substance.
Who you think is wrong probably says more about
your politics than about the discussion.
\_ Normal people would say Kerry mispoke, he
meant radio address, but otherwise, yes,
Dubya did say he lied.
The example does not fit the Krugman-O'Reilly
exchange, though.
\_ Perhaps this says more about your politics
than about the discussion. Screw where
Krugman said it, but what is X?
exchange, though. This is the exchange:
O'Reilly: You said X.
Krugman: I did not say X.
O'Reilly: You said Y.
Krugman: "Nope." (probably on Y, but maybe
X or some mishmash of the two)
Luskin shows evidence that Krugman wrote Y in
a column, when Krugman really wrote Z.
X = deeper recession
Y = disastrous for the economy
Z = a major drag on the economy
It matters not whether it's a newspaper column
or book, because, like I said, normal people
don't care.
\_ Now, this is a different description than
was given above (you introduced Z, which
is new). To keep using your variables,
it seems that Y > X ~> Z. Without exact
quotes, I think it would be hard for me
to figure out how how similar X is to Z.
Do you have the exact quotes wrt X and Z?
\_ Thanks for Z. Do you have X too?
\_ hey you two, rtfurl.
\_ To find X, integrate Z wrt Y.
\_ Actually Z was: "Aside from their cruelty
and their adverse effect on the quality of
life, these cuts will be a major drag on
the national economy... it's clear that the
administration's tax-cut obsession isn't
just busting the budget; it's also
indirectly destroying jobs by preventing
any rational response to a weak economy."
\_ yeah, the last part of Z about the
destroying jobs does match with what
Krugman was saying to O'Reilly:
destroying jobs, not having "disastrous"
effects or causing a "deeper recession"
\_ yeah, the last part of Z does match
with what Krugman was saying to
O'Reilly: destroying jobs, not having
"disastrous" effects or causing a
"deeper recession"
My conclusion: Krugman was right.
O'Reilly and Donald Luskin are both
wrong. See X, Y, Z above.
\_ From the Somerby URL: why does this sound like soda motd?
"O'REILLY: Hey, Mr. Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own
research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it
out there for the folks.
KRUGMAN: What have I said that's false?
O'REILLY: Do your own research!
KRUGMAN: Come on."
\_ Why does all this seem to me, as a person who is really neither
involved nor interested, as really fucking petty and irrelevant?
Somehow the phrase "get a life" springs to mind." -John |
| 12/24 |
|
| www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp August 09, 2004, 9:30 am The Dead Zone Krugman is squashed in a debate with OReilly. There could only have been two possible outcomes when the arch-shockpundits of the Left and Right, Paul Krugman and Bill O'Reilly, met on Tim Russerts CNBC show for a televised showdown. It was either going to be The Beatles, or Quentin Tarantino -- Paul is dead, or Kill Bill. At several points in the show Krugman was practically in shock, with hands visibly trembling. He didnt for one moment grant Krugman the undeserved respect that everyone else grants him, thanks to the prestigious aura of his Princeton professorship and his New York Times column. And OReilly didnt let Krugman get away with any of his usual stunts. OReilly uncompromisingly held Krugman to account for some of the outrageous (and outrageously wrong) things Krugmans written in his Times columns. In one case, when Krugman denied what OReilly accused him of having said, OReilly jabbed his index finger toward Krugmans face and shouted, Dont call me a liar, pal. Thats what you do all the time, and Im not going to sit here and take it. OReilly had reminded Krugman of his repeated predictions of economic catastrophe as the result of President Bushs tax cuts -- a catastrophe that, obviously, hasnt materialized, and which Krugman now denies having predicted. Mr Krugman was dead 100 percent wrong in his columns, uh, two years ago when he said the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You made the point, in your book, okay, that these cuts, these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy. Its just too bad OReilly didnt have a quotation at hand to prove it. April 22, 2003, New York Times column that Aside from their cruelty and their adverse effect on the quality of life, these cuts will be a major drag on the national economy. its clear that the administrations tax-cut obsession isnt just busting the budget; its also indirectly destroying jobs by preventing any rational response to a weak economy. OReilly followed up by cleverly asking Krugman -- since Krugman was claiming not to have predicted a deeper recession after the tax cuts -- whether he instead predicted the economic growth of the last year? Krugman was so flustered -- no doubt knowing he was checkmated -- that he stammered out this remarkable confession: Compare me compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think youll see that my forecasting record is not great. What was most impressive about OReillys performance in the debate is that he was genuinely not partisan. In fact, he often took positions that were conciliatory to Krugman with respect to heated partisan issues. As but one example among several, he offered freely that the Iraq war was a big screw-up. But over and over, he shamed Krugman by rubbing his face in the exaggerated and partisan way that he and others in the liberal press handle these issues. Faced with an opponent who was on the one hand so conciliatory, and on the other hand so aggressive, Krugman could do little more than throw out feeble ripostes or roll over and change the subject. At one point OReilly faulted Krugman for appearing in public with the likes of Al Franken: O'Reilly: The war on terror may not have been best served by the Iraq adventure. What I object to is the lying charges, the slander and defamation that comes out of the Krugman wing -- if you want to call it -- of the social landscape. Saturday Night Live role played by Franken , the biggest character assassinator in the country. OReilly: You are in with the most vile form of defamation in this country. usual brown-nosing platitudes about how bend-over-backwards even-handed the Times is: I think if you look, well Im, Im not gonna, you know Im not here to, to defend the New York Times, which has nothing to do with what I write in the column. Starting the last segment of the show, Krugman tried to take the offensive what was clearly a prepared gotcha, relying on written notes hed held in front of him during the whole program. Having discussed Michael Moore and his film, Fahrenheit 9-11, in the previous segment, Krugman looked furtively at Russert like a little boy about to play a nasty prank, and said, Actually I just want to say a word about Fahrenheit 9-11, uh, just to talk a little bit about Bill OReillys credibility on this. Uh, uh, Bill has said on-air that, uh, Michael Moore believes we are an evil country, and if you saw the film you know thats not true. And, uh, actually, he denied in the same program that you said what you just said, but anyways I just think thats a little something to look at in terms of the credibility. If the sheer feebleness and inarticulateness of that attack leaves you wondering what Krugman was trying to accomplish, let me explain. As hard as it is to believe, apparently Krugmans admiration for Moore and his film is so deep that, in his mind, OReillys saying Moore called America evil is enough to impugn OReillys credibility. Krugman says, I think there were a lot of things in that film that showed that this is a guy who really does love his country. Whatever you may think of the film, all OReilly had done on his radio show was accurately quote Moore speaking of this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe. But it was the best the flustered Krugman could do, though it ended up leading him into an OReilly trap. The trap revealed what I consider to be Krugmans worst vice -- the way he recycles propaganda and rumors from leftist gossip sites, giving them the imprimatur of the New York Times. Krugman: Hey, wait a second, sir O'Reilly: Hey, Mr Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own research, pal, and stop taking that left-wing garbage, throwing it out there for the folks. Looks to me like Americas most dangerous liberal pundit learned a couple valuable lessons this past Saturday. For one thing, he learned that its a lot easier to call people liars, lie about your own past statements, and spread partisan innuendo from the secure redoubt of the op-ed page of the New York Times, where the only feedback you get is the hand-picked atta-boys published on the Timess letters page. Maybe he learned that you cant get away with that stuff when theres a living, breathing opponent across the table from you -- someone like Bill OReilly, whos not afraid to fight back. And could it be, just possibly, that Krugman has finally learned a little something about humility? |
| pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html Daily Howler regarding O'Reilly lies and blustering in his commentary on this show. Tonight, two observers and commentators on the American political scene. Both have books that are must-reads for Americans who are interested in public affairs. Paul Krugman, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century"--he writes his column for The New York Times every Tuesday and Friday. Professor PAUL KRUGMAN ("The Great Unraveling"): Nice to be on. by Bill O'Reilly of "The O'Reilly Factor" on FOX News Channel. Mr BILL O'REILLY (FOX News, "The O'Reilly Factor"): Tim. You have a simple premise in your book which says that George Bush is a radical. Why do you use a word like radical to describe the president? This is the first president in American history--in fact, first leader in any history, as far as I can tell--who cut taxes on the rich while fighting a war. This is a--they follow an extremely radical policy agenda. And if you look at the groups behind the administration, look at the think tanks, they make no bones about the fact that they want to roll us back to what we were before Franklin Roosevelt; that they want to get rid of these nasty things like Social Security and Medicare, privatize them. So, you know, this is a highly--this is a radical conservative movement. And just, you know, look at Tom DeLay, the most powerful man in Congress, who is certainly not somebody you'd call a moderate. Mr O'REILLY: You know, I think the Bush administration wants to impose a smaller government on the country. I think they don't trust the government to operate the funds. Obviously Social Security has been looted by the federal government. So, you know, one man's radicalism is another man's practicality. But obviously I don't see them as the harmful, pernicious influence that Mr Krugman does. Mr O'REILLY: Because I believe that Mr Bush's philosophy is a philosophy that the Republicans have embraced for decades: smaller government; let the entrepreneurial class get a tax break, so they'll hire more people. And if you look at The New York Times op-ed on last Wednesday, you'll see George Shultz has a chart that the economy is rebounding after a tremendous blow on 9/11. So that's the supply side, that's the Republican philosophy. I don't see any deviation from what Ronald Reagan did to George Bush. RUSSERT: Can't you make the case that tax cuts stimulated the economy? KRUGMAN: George Shultz is a good economist and a partisan Republican. He's a good enough economist that he knows how to make a chart that is true but misleading. And what it's really telling you is that after three terrible years on jobs, we've had one year where the rate of change is OK. The fact is--simple comparison--in the 2002 economic report of the president, which they--you know, this is the Bush administration that's put out after 9/11, it's put out after the stock market crash--they said by--you know, on average in 2004, we're going to have 138 million payroll jobs in the United States. The actual number right now is about 131 million, so we're seven million short of where the Bush administration said we were going to be. And, you know, think above all--when people say, 'We want less government,' you know, let's talk about what that means. You actually go through the numbers, and the only way you can get a significantly smaller government, the only way you could bring spending in line with the amount of revenue that we've lost from the Bush tax cuts, is to cut deep into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid 'cause that's where the money is. And, you know, Mr Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation... You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy. Mr O'REILLY: The economy is based on job creation, and you're saying it's ineffective. That's what you do all the time, and I'm not going to sit here and take it. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession. Mr O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it ineffective in job creation. KRUGMAN: I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation... KRUGMAN: Again, 2002 economic report of the president, they said we were going to be seven million jobs ahead of where we are now. KRUGMAN: They--the job creation over the last 10 months, the 15 million... which the Bushies boast about, that is a slower pace of job creation than Clinton had from ninety... Mr O'REILLY: We've got a 56 percent unemployment rate here. In the state of Florida, which is one of the states that's going to be the election (unintelligible), you got over 60 percent saying the economy is good or excellent. Mr O'REILLY: And if Bush made a mistake in his estimation of job creation, you're probably right. Mr O'REILLY: You know, you're a cheap-shot artist, and you know it. The--what we were saying--what I said--you know, people can read the book. The--what I said was this was not the kind of stimulus program that was going to be effective. And if you gave any of my college sophomores the right to run budget deficits as big as what we're now running, any of them could do a whole lot better than this. What we have--look, these days Bush is out on the road boasting of 15 million jobs over the last 10 months; The US economy needs 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So that's just barely gaining ground, and that's after three terrible years. Right now you take a look, you say--the other comparison is under Bill Clinton, the economy for 96 months added an average of more than 230,000 jobs a month. So here we are with Bush with one year, which I admit is not bad--not great, but not bad. KRUGMAN: But compare me with anyone else, and I think my forecasting record is not great. Does that mean when Bush misanalyzed his job creation... KRUGMAN: That job creation number was a guess at what it would--what success would look like. KRUGMAN: I'm not saying they had to be right, and this doesn't... His book is in paperback, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century." Bill O'Reilly's book is still in hard cover, "Who's Looking Out for You?" Bill O'Reilly of FOX News Channel, "The O'Reilly Factor," "Who's Looking Out for You?" Bill O'Reilly, what about deficits, the largest in history? I think Bush is pandering to the electorate by a whole bunch of programs. Most of the states are going to have to give it back to the Treasury because they just can't spend the money. And I am, basically, a guy who says that both parties try to buy votes, and they have ever since FDR. They'll buy your vote by targeting certain segments and saying, 'We're going to create a big government thing to do this for you,' OK? So Bush basically doesn't like that but still does it, and then the deficits rise. But, again, the war on terror is such that we're living in a totally different time than we did in the '90s. RUSSERT: Mr Krugman has a theory in his book that there really is a group of Republicans who want to starve the beast, and that is if you drive spending up so high and you cut tax cuts, you'd be left with no choice but to cut... KRUGMAN: No, it's not--the driving spending up is not in there. I mean, we've got a deficit now which is probably going to be about $440 billion, $450 billion for this year; So when people talk spending, spending, spending, yeah, spending is an issue, but it's--the dominant force in this deficit is, in fact, tax cuts. Mr O'REILLY: My opinion is without those tax cuts, we'd be in a deep recession right now. Why aren't they temporary tax cuts to fight the recession? KRUGMAN: And why are the tax cuts heavily targeted towards the people who are least likely to spend the money, which is people... Mr O'REILLY: See, I don't believe that at all, and let me give you a personal example. I like to make--now if they raise taxes on me any more--because I live in the most heavily taxed state in the union, New York, all right? Mr O'REILLY: You know, it... |
| dailyhowler.com/dh081004.shtml Men like O'Reilly subvert the discourse when men like Tim Russert are cowards: TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004 TAIL-GUNNER BILL: "All right--to be continued," Tim Russert said, at the end of the hour-long program. Russert had just concluded an appalling session of his weekly CNBC program--a session in which his guest, Bill O'Reilly, showed the world what's wrong with the devolving American discourse. O'Reilly appeared with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--and Russert ought to be disturbed by what occurred on his show. The problems with "democratization of media" were on display throughout the hour. Inexplicably, Russert was eager to sign up for more when the session was done. Let's break O'Reilly's woeful performance into three troubling parts: PROBLEM ONE--SHEER DUMBNESS: "To be continued," Russert said. But who would want to extend a discussion as dumb as this one? Early on, to cite one example, O'Reilly attacked Krugman's views about the Bush tax cuts. But Mr O was astoundingly dumb: O'REILLY: You know, Mr Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. O'REILLY: Sure you did-- KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to lousy job creation. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy. And if you look at the Bush administration-- O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. KRUGMAN: No, it means that-- O'REILLY: The economy is based on job creation, and you're saying it's ineffective. Here we see the essence of the evening's discussion, with Krugman--who knew what he was talking about--routinely cut off by O'Reilly, who didn't. To O'Reilly, the difference between "a deeper recession" and "lousy job creation" is, somehow, a matter of semantics. The blustering Foxman soldiered on, but the dumbness only got worse: KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession. O'REILLY: You said--you-- KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said it. O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it "ineffective in job creation." But what did this have to do with the question at hand--whether Krugman had predicted recession? The hopeless discussion ground on: KRUGMAN (continuing directly): I-- O'REILLY: Pounded column after column: "Disastrous for the economy." KRUGMAN: I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation-- O'REILLY: And you were wrong. Let's face it--having O'Reilly debate Krugman on economics is like having Pee Wee Herman wrestle The Hulk. Laughably, O'Reilly played this segment on his program last night, apparently thinking that victory goes to him who speaks the loudest. By the way, how thoroughly does O'Reilly talk down to Fox viewers? Days had gone by since the session occurred--but O'Reilly still gave no example! Why on earth would a man like Russert want his viewers to get more of this? When Krugman discussed the run-up to war in Iraq, O'Reilly cited a conversation--a conversation that doesn't seem to have happened. Krugman argued that Bush rushed to war--that pre-war inspections should have continued. In reply, O'Reilly recalled what UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "flat-out" told him on his program: KRUGMAN: Remember, we went to war when there was an effective inspections regime back in place. We were doing, we were--we had Saddam pretty effectively caged. He came on my program flat-out and said, "They're not letting us interview the scientists," which was a key. From this statement, you might even think that Blix came on O'Reilly's show and "flat-out" told him about the scientists. Just in case there was any doubt, O'Reilly described the occasion again: O'REILLY: Blix came on the program and said to me flat-out, "They aren't cooperating. We can't interview the scientists, and we can't go where we want to go." They gave him all kinds of time, Saddam, to stop the nonsense. For reasons that must be fairly obvious, this claim seemed to strike Krugman as odd. A back-and-forth battle ensued: KRUGMAN: I'm gonna wager that Blix--I don't have the record, but I'm gonna wager Blix told you that a number of months before the war. Before the-- O'REILLY: Well, it was a couple of months before. KRUGMAN: Before Saddam opened up a lot more under pressure. And nobody disapproved of putting extra pressure on him. But in fact, Blix doesn't seem to have said that to O'Reilly, before or after the war. According to every record we can find, the blustering talker never had that discussion with the UN gumshoe. O'Reilly may have been thinking of Joseph Wilson, who appeared on The Factor on January 13, 2003--two months before the war began--and discussed the question of interviews with Iraqi scientists. "Hans Blix told the UN Security Council that Saddam Hussein will not allow his inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists out of the country," O'Reilly told Wilson. "Blix said flat-out, his guys, his inspectors, can't talk to these scientists." So it seems that Blix didn't flat-out say this to O'Reilly; according to the talker's paraphrase, Blix flat-out said this to the UN. You know: Someone says something to the UN--and you end up thinking he said it to you? According to all available records, Blix has appeared on The Factor once--on March 15, 2004, one year after the war in Iraq. "This is the no-spin zone," the tail-gunner blustered, "so you're going to give me it straight, all right?" We can find no record of such a session, nor can we find any instance in which O'Reilly discussed such an event (although he often discussed Blix on his program). We're certainly willing to be corrected, but it seems that Bill just made this one up. If so, why would Russert want more conversation with a man as "inventive" as this? PROBLEM THREE--NAME-CALLING: But the biggest problem on Russert's show was O'Reilly's incessant, nasty name-calling. But in the previous several minutes, O'Reilly had name-called loudly and crudely, jabbing roughly at Krugman as he did (he raised his voice and glowered at Krugman throughout the program). Here's a taste of what transpired when Krugman cited something O'Reilly said on his radio program--a quote transcribed by David Brock's Media Matters: O'REILLY: And where did you get that little "evil" quote, by the way? KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second-- O'REILLY: Hey, Mr Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it out there for the folks. O'REILLY: You are about the most unobjective person on the face of the--Media Matters! Now that we got the great (unintelligible) ends up being a Communist. And yes, as a matter of fact, there we went--straight into the dumpster of democracy, as a loudmouth successor to Father Coughlin ranted loudly, wagged his finger, and refused to deal with the issue at hand. For the record, O'Reilly never answered Krugman's question. ") Nor did he ever try to explain what "context" was missing from the quote Krugman read. Indeed, O'Reilly's name-calling continued to the end of the show. Here is the inspiring work that Russert wants to get more of: O'REILLY: You call the left-wing hate groups up to get your propaganda. KRUGMAN: This--somebody who runs a Web site, that's the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan? Throughout the hour, O'Reilly showed what's wrong with American discourse. Why on earth would a man like Russert subject us to more trash like that? THE MORAL OF THE STORY: Tail-Gunner Joes are always with us; Now, they're thrown onto cable TV, where they're encouraged to clown, spin, name-call, jab and rant. Endlessly, they fool the rubes, misleading them, spinning them, abusing their decency. These people will always prey on democracy--if they're given a spot center stage. Of course, it's always been up to men like Russert to exercise a bit of discretion. As long as Russert makes his home with the swells, he's sure to be true to his word. WHAT THE TAIL-GUNNER ACTUALLY SAID: A bit of background on that disputed quote which was "left-wing garbage" and "taken out of context." The dispute began when Krugman discussed Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11: KRUGM... |