...but War Room's piece, with about a seven-word creative contribution, makes a mockery of "Fair Use."

What really matters to voters is that he opposes Roe v Wade.

I know he is a left-of-center bomb thrower, but he is as an intelligent, straight-shooting problem-solver as you are likely to find. He should be a Presidential advisor when Obama is elected.

... and bears shit in the woods.

Sure, Krugman's correct. But this column is one of his shallower ones, and this blog entry is even more shallow.

You exerpted the whole collumn. Not that that's a bad thing.

Anyone who would be swayed by a Krugman column is already voting against McPain.

McCain is the only politician scarier than W. when it comes to economic matters. His idiotic, panicky shuffle back to DC last week speaks volumes about his motives- did he stop by a hospital along the way to offer surgical advice as well? He wanted to form a panel to investigate the financial disaster that is currently unfolding- yeah, this is just like 9/11. The fact that an internet-era charlatan whispers economic sweet nothings in his ear should be no surprise. McCain is the only serious threat to domestic security.

Has there ever been a more pathetic economic proposal than the suggestion of House Republicans that we try to solve the financial crisis by eliminating capital gains taxes?

Well, I dunno, how about the Republican drive in 2005, spearheaded by the Bush administration, to privatize Social Security? That was pathetic at the time, and looks even more so today. But still, a good point from Krugman. The Repubes are intellectually bankrupt and discredited when it comes to economic and financial policy. Even the WSJ published an editorial over the weekend calling for a new New Deal! LOL The plutocrats are coming to realize, AGAIN, that capitalism needs to be saved from itself, just like in the 1930s. The worm is turning, and the market fundamentalists in the GOP will join so many other ideologues on the ash heap of history. It's only a matter of time.

"In other news, a Bostonian scorches the NY Yankees ...

... and bears shit in the woods."

The two are conflicting -- the first being a rarity and the second happening consistently. Since bears have been crapping in the woods forever and Bostonians have been scorching NY Yankees for about 10% of baseball history your point about the Krugman column is unclear.

After Krugman wrote this, in defense of the GSE's, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"What you need to know here is that the right -- the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. -- hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don't want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo."

[Angleo Mozilo, of Countrywide Mortgage infamy.]

What the Journal's Paul Gigot wrote in response was this:

"That's a howler even by Mr. Krugman's standards. Fannie Mae and Mr. Mozilo weren't competitors; they were partners. Fannie helped to make Countrywide as profitable as it once was by buying its mortgages in bulk. Mr. Raines -- following predecessor Jim Johnson -- and Mr. Mozilo made each other rich. Which explains why Mr. Johnson could feel so comfortable asking Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) to discuss a sweetheart mortgage with Mr. Mozilo, and also explains the Mozilo-Raines tag team in 2003.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121677050160675397.html

Asking Paul Krugman about the current financial crisis is like asking an Enron advisor about the Enron collapse. Wait -- Paul Krugman WAS an Enron advisor.

For years, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page (the political opposite, essentially, of Salon) had warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And through most of that time, people like Barney Frank, and Paul Krugman, defended the GSE's.

Paul Krugman has to be one of the scariest, nuttiest, most offensive creeps ever to inflict himself on the American economic scene. It makes my skin crawl to see him or hear him for more than about five seconds at a time.