What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te (sic) atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
The most absurd response comes from Glenn Reynolds, who writes, “Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had. Thus, he tries to piss all over the people he’s always hated and envied (emphasis added).”
I have long suspected that Reynolds only reads the parts he wants to and this post is further evidence. If we are to presume that he believes that President Obama is Krugman’s “messiah” (he only implies such) then clearly, Reynolds never actually reads the Nobel Prize winning Times columnist. Krugman has never been much of a fan of Obama. In January of 2008, Krugman wrote about Obama’s response to the recession:
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
That last sentence is an obvious reference to George W. Bush, which should be enough to dispel the notion that Krugman is some sort of Obama worshiper who has become recently disillusioned.
I won’t resort to the sort of childish taunts (today, at least) that Reynolds uses. I don’t think that he is bitter or jealous of Krugman (though the latter’s status is vastly greater), but I do believe that he cares most about which team has the ball than anything else. While Krugman has been harshly critical of both the Bush and Obama presidencies, Reynolds only became a strong critic of the executive branch on about January, 20 of 2009—back in 2008 when Krugman was fretting about recession, Reynolds was shilling for the Bush White House.
UPDATE: Ron Paul (via Balloon Juice) adds, “We should never forget those in our government who used the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history as an excuse to launch completely unrelated wars, to do unprecedented damage to Americans’ historic liberties, to run roughshod over the Constitution, and to betray the Founders’ vision by savaging some of our most deeply held values.”