Comments on: Sorry, Mickey, But Krugman Is Still Wrong

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Krugman Gives Ground - Sort Of

Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Krugman Gives Ground - Sort Of — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:02:36 +0000

[...] The other answer is that many though not all reports of the results of the ballot reviews conveyed a false impression about what those reviews said. A few reports got the facts wrong, but for the most part they simply stressed the likelihood – in some cases presented as a certainty – that Mr. Bush would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t intervened. But even if a proper recount wasn’t in the cards given the political realities, that says nothing about what such a recount would have found. I will buy a steak dinner for the first reader who can show me any editorial or blog post by anyone that says no possible recount would have changed the outcome. You certainly didn’t hear it here. Look at Krugman’s pathetic wording on his second point: “…Even if a proper recount wasn’t in the cards given the political realities”. That’s game, set, and match, proving that even Krugman doesn’t believe his original assertion that Al Gore won the 2000 election; he has just admitted that a full manual recount wasn’t in the cards. All else is speculation. [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:43:21 +0000

Greg, thanks for the link, I look forward to perusing it; like you, I’m a big admirer of Taranto…

By: Greg Bullock

Greg Bullock — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:38:54 +0000

For my money, James Taranto had the best “in brief” wrap on the 2000 election. He not long ago wrote:

“To this day, you hear Democratic partisans insist that Bush “stole” the election, even though Gore never led in Florida, and subsequent mock recounts conducted by journalistic organizations (including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times) found that he would have maintained his lead by any uniform re-re-recounting method. And some of the arguments Gore backers made during the brouhaha were even sillier…”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006963

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:57:39 +0000

The accusation that The Great Raid was somehow racist because of an accurate depiction of the Japanese military during WWII runs into problems given the very favorable depiction of the brave men and women of the Phillipines. They’re “slant-eyed,” no?

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:41:38 +0000

Me three!

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:48:07 +0000

You and me both…

By: Peter Dunne

Peter Dunne — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:42:32 +0000

Well, the Dems are pretty good at rewriting history. Look at the reviews for “The Great Raid” that accuse the movie makers of hackneyed stereotypes of slant-eyed Japanese villians. Excuse me? What about that Bataan Death March thing or the slave labor or other well documented war crimes? Now they want to re-write result of the 2000 election, as if the 2004 election wasn’t validation enough. Is it propaganda or do these people really believe this stuff? Who knows? The interesting part is whether they’ll succeed in re-writing history. It’s worked in the past; we supposedly lost the military war in Vietnam (wrong), Able Danger never existed (“it was all about sex”), and there was no connection between Sadam and terrorists (“Bush lied”). Well they control the mass media and the universities. So far, at least, they don’t control our minds. Wish I could read the history books 100 years from now.