« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Paul Krugman Calls for the Assassination of Paul Ryan

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  April 17th, 2011 at 10:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

RedState co-founder Josh Trevino has noticed the following: back in January, Paul Krugman was one of many drooling idiot leftists devoid of any moral compass who tried to pin the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on a lack of Republican civility. Even though, by the time Krugman’s column ran, it was clear that Giffords’ shooter was a mentally disturbed individual whose assassination plot was not motivated by coherent political theory of any stripe, Krugman was not about to let facts get in the way of a good partisan narrative:

 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

 

Yes, Krugman claimed, without any appreciable sense of shame, that a man who was seriously mentally ill was merely a symptom of – no kidding – “toxic rhetoric.” Well, three whole months have passed since Krugman peddled this tripe and apparently, Krugman’s sense of shame hasn’t become any more well-developed. Now he’s got a piece out on Paul Ryan‘s deficit reduction plan. The title – the TITLE – of this piece? Let’s Not be Civil.

 

According to Paul Krugman, Paul Krugman has just called for the assassination of Paul Ryan.

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • junkbondtrader41

    Krugman’s shifting definition of “democracy.” A year ago it meant ignoring polls and insulting the Tea Party as a mob of uninformed crypto-racists, and allow the Democrats in Congress – “democratically elected” with a “mandate” – pass health care. Now he siezes on polls like they’re the Magna Carta, and suggests working with “democratically elected” Republicans is … “undemocratic.”

    It’s all very confusing.

  • msctex

    He is watching as everything he believes as an educated professional, one awarded some of the highest honors to be had in his field, is exposed as dysfunctional nonsense. Obama and his priorities were to be the final, long-overdue triumph of the Left, and it has all crashed and burned without even anyone they can rationally hope to blame.

    The “True Believer” metaphor couldn’t be any more apt than in Krugman’s case. He must be in a unique sort of hell right now, and it will only get worse.

    • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      I feel the ‘choice’ of life or death of a baby inside a woman’s womb is, in the final decision, HER choice! Of course, her husband will be involved with her ‘choice’ and her Pastor should counsel and give his feelings on the support for life.

      Legalising the murder of babies by the Supreme Court in 1973 was a ‘supreme’ invasion of a woman’s rights and should have NEVER been the concern of ANY man, other than the husband, in the public domain, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court!

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    Much as I loathe Paul Krugman, here is the actual quote from his piece:

    So let?s not be civil. Instead, let?s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so ? and take their case to the voters.

    There’s nothing in there calling for an assassination.

    Krugman deserves our contempt, but we are supposed to be the side that sticks to facts.

    • Diogenes314

      There?s nothing in there calling for an assassination.

      By definition PK 2.0′s toxic rhetoric is a subliminal call to violence.

      BTW, Both Krugmans are still morons.

    • 20jan2013

      I clicked the link, read the article, and now you have lost credibility with this reader. Krugman has not called for anyone to be killed. How can this be on the front page?

    • Doc Holliday

      I wasted a few minutes reading Krugman’s piece. The headline should be Krugman Gets Paid for Writing Nothing at All.

      • Doc Holliday

        I do get Leon’s point though. He is saying our incivility caused a murder and he is now calling for Democrats to be uncivil. My question is when were they not?

        • nhbuckeye

          fellas. If Republicans want to fix Medicare, Democrats say they want to kill old people. The title of this article was pointedly hyperbolic to highlight the hypocrisy of Krugman and Krew. Krugman holds himself and his party to far lower standards than he holds the opposition, as usual. He just wants what he wants no matter what the costs, which seems to be pretty much the Progressive attitude across the board. Democrats, the real ones, have been driven from the party, and we’re left with the truly evil Progressive party. Blue Dog Dems used to be the regular Democrats. Progressives have made the left the new middle and their extreme, socialist agenda has is now represented by the Democrat party. The Bill Ayers fringe have mainstreamed themselves.

          • Flagstaff

            In fact, it may turn out to be right on the money.

            Democrats are never very good at recognizing irony when they are the perpetrators of the ironic. They have completely forgotten all of President Obama’s campaign promises, just as he has.

            Read some of the comments following the article. The liberal followers of PK have long memories when it comes to ill words spoken against Democrats. They are not so good at remembering PK’s earlier claims that “incivility” led to the atmosphere that facilitated the shooting of Gabby Giffords (did I generate an emanation from a penumbra well enough?), nor the President’s own contemporary call for “civility” (aimed at Republicans, of course), as they clamor to defend the Krugman opus.

            “Winning Progressive” from Chicago writes,

            ‘Amen, Professor Krugman. The calls from the chattering classes for “civility” have always amazed me for at least two reasons.’

            He then goes on for three paragraphs, the middle one of which is, in its entirety,

            ‘The second thing that amazes me about the call for “civility” is that it only goes one direction. As we’ve seen with this budget debate, Democrats and progressives are always told to stop questioning so that they can be “civil.” Republicans and conservatives are rarely told to do so. ‘

            Rarely, eh? Perhaps that gets him off the hook. He is right about one thing, however:

            “…civility, as defined by the chattering classes, is antithetical to democratic governance. Certainly we should treat each other with basic respect and be willing to debate legitimate policy differences and even change our minds if the facts prove a differing opinion to be correct. But civility as it is used today is intended to, instead, stifle debate by claiming that disagreement is somehow uncivil.”

            A good example is provided a bit further down by pvolkov, who tells us

            “BRAVO!!! Prof. Krugman. I just witnessed a video of Sara Palin trying to make a speech in Madison, Wisconsin with a huge crowd shouting her down with chants of GO HOME! which went on and on.”

            pvolkov is Canadian by address, so perhaps what pv describes is what they call “civil debate” north of our border. Way to present a “differing opinion” there, Madisonians, and to provide an example of progressive “civility” in the process.

            But let’s face it, Krugman buys his clothes at the Clown Store and they fit just fine.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    reading comprehension than the rest of us. Any chance you could be a tad more direct and blockquote the offending passage?

    I can find lots of PK being a jerk, but that’s about all. I can’t even find a giant leap.

    • aesthete

      A while back, he blamed the Tucson shooting on Palin’s “incivility” and bullseye painting, etc. Scant months later, he’s back telling Democrats to be uncivil to Paul Ryan. Therefore, according to Paul Krugman’s theory of causation, if anyone assassinates Paul Ryan, he’s to blame for his “incendiary rhetoric”.

      • edintexas

        Some people always fail to catch sarcasm, taking it literally. It is something we humans do with some frequency.

        • Doc Holliday

          nhbuckeye explained the diary to me, responding to a post I made explaining the diary the same way.

  • g55rumpy

    the NYT when one makes a comment, states “it will appear if it`s on topic and NON_ABUSIVE”. PK IS offensive

  • barrowmrb

    My father read the NY Times and respected the paper all his life. I too, read
    the paper and respected its opinion and newsworthly information.

    I no longer respect, nor read, nor purchase, or review the New York Times and their staff, such as Krugman are the very reason.

    The New York Times has become nothing more than a RAGSHEET.

  • popster

    straight from Hell. Everything has worked so well for the last 2 1/2 years, Another idiot who pens his mouth and weakens the Nation.

    • nhbuckeye

      Hell is right on.

      • red_refugee

        as much as Arafat deserved the Nobel peace prize.

  • kfwmcc

    Please show where Krugman called for Ryan’s assassination. That is an outrageous claim. Looking at the article you sighted, here is the line about incivility Krugman is calling for:

    “So let?s not be civil. Instead, let?s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so ? and take their case to the voters. ”

    I don’t hear anything about Ryan or assassination in there…

    • mspector

      and read the above posts regarding concepts such as sarcasm and irony. Consider that Krugman faulted Sarah and the Tea Party’s “incivility” for the shooting of Rep Giffords, and consider that he now wants liberals not to be civil. It’s a funny ha-ha. Get it?

      • uselogic

        are lost on trolls such as kfwmcc. They only work within the realm of DNC/Huffpo/Koz talking points. Thanks for being a Good Samaritan and trying to help ‘em understand, though.

  • mspector

    Krugman and his ilk can’t understand this, because to them to be frank is to rant and rave, and to be civil is to dissemble and avoid political confrontation. Theirs is a world that swivels between taking over the statehouse and smoking cigars in the back rooms.

    But to have a frank discussion means you put your cards on the table. Civility means that you keep the discussion on the ideas and leave your demagoguery in the shower along with your karaoke mike.

    We should be welcoming the call to push issues to the fore; all that can do is lay bare the vacuity of liberal “thought” and give us more than ample opportunity also to demonstrate the absence of liberal “honor” as most recently evidenced by Obama already trying to renege on the 12/10 tax agreement and his scorn for the current agreement defunding three “czar” positions (though by the time I’m done with this I’m sure there will be more).

  • sparkyva

    Paul Krugman,

    OK some of your crazy’s do have guns. One shot the congresswoman from Arizona (a liberal guy and a liberal gal). But we Conservatives are the ones who love our guns and religion. Are you sure you want to do this? If you want to go about shooting conservatives, we all have guns, you are way out numbered…

  • msabul

    Krugman is a Schmuck. Nevertheless, provocative headlines driven by rhetoric and not anchored in precise language gives so much ammo to the other side that it is embarassing and frankly not worthy of your otherwise careful analysis, Leon.

  • Leon H. Wolf

    I guess Mr. Krugman is learning that being hoisted upon your own petard can really be a pain the neck sometimes.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      I’m sure Krugman will get the funny soon enough and apologize to conservatives for blaming Giffords’ death on them and then I’ll apologize to Krugman and we’ll all be one big happy family again. So everyone calm down.

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        Darn!!

  • johnstoirvin

    Perfect example of what the Left rails against and accuses the Right of being. (Warning: This video is not for everyone)

    http://youtu.be/V7l-pEBYeLI

  • johnstoirvin

    Perfect example of what the Left rails against and accuses the Right of being. (Warning: This video is not for everyone)

    http://youtu.be/V7l-pEBYeLI

  • dougindeap

    The headline is but a baldfaced lie–to put it plainly. Krugman says nothing remotely warranting that smear.

    Boiled down, the post’s “logic” is that (1) Krugman once wrote an article attributing the shooting in Arizona at least in part to the uncivil, incindiary rhetoric that now marks much public discourse, (2) Krugman has now written an article suggesting Democrats not be so civil and instead engage Republicans in a frank discussion of differences, (3) so therefore Krugman calls for the assassination of Paul Ryan (who, by the way, Krugman never mentions in this article). Back to school Mr. Wolf for a refresher course in critical thinking. And who is vetting these posts? By any reasonable standard, this one should not have made the cut.

    • Diogenes314

      A whole lot of hyper-sensitive cluelessness in these here comments.

    • Kyle-MI

      I would characterize it as a Reductio ad absurdum argument.