Quote:
Originally posted by ironweed
You will no doubt be shocked (shocked!) to learn that I think Krugman is dead on most of the time, but what I wanted to ask is who you (and any others who want to chime in on this) think gets it right among the punditocracy (if anyone). Safire? Brooks? Coulter? Lewis Lapham (ok, just threw that one in for a laugh).
|
I don't think any of them ever "get it right" or are "dead on" most of the time. My suggestion was that oped pages allow for both sides to rant. It'd make it much easier and cheaper than having to buy the Times and the Journal and read the opeds back to back.
I was wrong to lump Krugman with Sontag. Nor is he the left equivalent of Culter (who is too smart to actually believe the carp she writes and is obviously whoring it up for $$$).
I loathe Will's social stances, but he has done an admirable job of trying to distinguish the neocons from real republican fiscal conservatives.
Safirs needs to hang it up. He's as nuts on the Iraq terror link as Krugman is on Bush ruining everything for generations to come. Extreme positions are never right. I think Krugman recognizes he is overblowing things, but feels he needs to overhype it because Bush is just that bad. I applaud him for that, but as a writer, he's basiaclly shit away his credentials.
ETA: Sontag is distinguishable from all of them because she hasn't a stitch of practicality in her writing. She's a leftist observer with a massive idealogical chip on her shoulder toward not only Bush, but most of modern society. She's like letting your Fem Lit professor grab the oped lage for a day. Junk.
