He's the "public editor" for the New Freaking York Times, whatever the hell a public editor is. He doesn't hafta listen to you. He doesn't hafta listen to anybody.

Hopefully they will continue it for a few more weeks, while resorting to vile rhetoric and ad hominim attacks, and embaress the paper, so they all get fired, and the Times can hire some decent columnists for once. Ones with intellect and real opinions (not just beltway cliches) and we can get the only respectable mainstream news source in the country back from the type of insecurity that mistakes weak-kneed conformity for being fair and balanced.

Overall, the canonization of Reagan has gone unchecked in the media. When I look around, I trace many of our current problems to Mr. Reagan and his "starve the beast" attitude towards government (except for military expenditures). By convincing the electorate that govenment was the enemy, he has created the broken system we are now stuck with. No or lacking investments in infrastructure or education. Since Reagan, we have largely handed over the governance of our Democracy to those who hate to govern. I have always enjoyed the irony that they named an airport after him.....

Joan, you are way off base in trivializing this series of editorials as a food fight. Brooks' is white washing Reagan's use of racism and Herbert and Krugman are rightly calling him on it.

Drew in Delaware, I think that by presenting this as an issue on which there are multiple, equally valid points of view, the Times contributes to a certain cynicism about what the truth is. And I'd rather Krugman and Herbert were liberated to write about the many unfolding outrages of 2007, rather than those of 1980.

I'm sick of claims that Republican leaders aren't personally (fill in the blank): racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant...

This is just disheartening. I think you're going through delusional projection.

I think one must have a good grounding in the past to analyze the future. Are you contending that 1980 holds little sway over today's events, both political and temporal? I hope not! Considering how conservatives still swoon over the man, I would say he still looms a bit.

I also feel like Krugman landed some nice body blows last week that Brooks left unanswered. Did Brooks not answer because he had something better to write about or because he knew he could never credibly answer the claims?

I think the latter, given his column last week was boring.

I bet K-dog is just twisting the knife a little bit with this latest column to see if Brooks has any fight left in him or if he is truly conceding the point.

Either way. Any day when liars like David Brooks are challenged and found weak is a good day. Expose their lies and punish them for having written/spoken them.

Challenging the lies allowed to promulgate our news cycle is an important and vital duty.

With the exasperation Ms. Walsh voices, I have to wonder is she with Speaker Pelosi on the impeachment question? Is the present work (ie securing a consolidation of Democratic power in 2008) more important than the problems of 2001 - 2006?

I would rather see more fights, not fewer. It means people care more about the real issues than they do about securing some political advantage. I would rather see someone take a principled stand and challenge the other side than equivocate and hedge in order to hold power, but maybe that makes me an outlier.

They say you get the government you deserve. When the Dems win in 08, won't we just be getting a crowd of people in power whose sole principle is their own advancement? Since we seem to demand nothing over mere tactical competence, I fear that is exactly what we will get; a blue coat of paint on the same naked ambition.

I prefer to see people fighting for what is right and what is true.

"And I'd rather Krugman and Herbert were liberated to write about the many unfolding outrages of 2007, rather than those of 1980."

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet. If you like the historical revision of Reagan's foreign policy (what mass graves?), domestic policies (Insider trading? S&L's looted, and in need of huge bailout? Welfare Queens!) and legacy (ketchup, still a vegetable), you'll love the sequel: George W. Bush- defender of liberty, civil and otherwise; reluctant war-president; wise and sagacious and eloquent, and the kind guy you could have a beer with. Wrote all his own speeches, too.

Think I'm kidding?

While there is an aspect of this dispute that can be mocked as a childish "my dad's bigger and can kick your dad's whatever," the historical revision at work here is serious, which leads to not only a lack of understanding of our nation's history that seems to afflict too many Americans, but also to the idea of exceptionalism that accompanies the denial of that actual history.

More important than a minor speech over a quarter of a century ago is the state of today's Republican Party. They enjoyed a brief surge in minority participation less than four years ago. Now they've squandered that opportunity.

But what they do now is far more indicative of where they want to be. A party pandering to the baser instincts of middle class, primarily white males (just like me except that I'm not a Republican or anything resembling one well maybe the haircut I guess).

What Reagan intended doesn't matter. What Rove and Company wants does. And they got what they deserve.

Lou Cannon, perhaps?

Geeze. The only people in desperate need of a fact-checking reporter, if not adult supervision, are Krugman and Herbert.

salon defended the truth as well as paul krugman does. i've been so happy to see that blowhard david brooks get what for!

it has been especially wonderful to see, too, having grown up in the deep south amidst the clandestine racial politics that pk and his colleague so eloquently rebuff.

furthermore, and especially given the subject at hand, all parties are maintaining professionalism and writing intelligent pieces. this is what op-eds are for. the truth about this is that there IS no verifiable truth- it's a matter of parsing politics. you can't send someone out to verify what reagan did or didn't mean once and for all. that's also why it's important to argue the point. i don't know if you've seen the kind of things that pass as truth and fact in our world lately...but again, i'm so happy to see pk out there on the firing lines, giving 'em hell.

frankly your attitude on this matter goes a long way towards explaining why i often find so much lacking here at salon.