Paul Krugman shames himself further.

Ronald Reagan, in his famous speech on the eve of the 1964 election, said the typical Liberal-Progressive-Democrat was well-meaning but wrong.  First listening to  Limbaugh, my first step to conversion to Conservatism came about by Rush's repeating the same idea. 

 

But through the years, I have wondered if Liberal-Progressives are well-meaning.  All that I have meet  them are convinced that they are unquestionably good; and their opponents are evil, or are deformed in some way.  During Obama's election to the Presidency, I witnessed the vilest prejudices voiced from them about Sarah Palin, and a certain kind of so-called, gun-clinging, religious American. 

 

Liberal-Progressives, as soon as Obama was elected, voiced their fantasies of Obama being assassinated.  I say fantasies, because an assassination of Obama would only benefit Progressives -- that hasn't happened, but the tragic shooting of the Representative in Arizona has turned out to be a more wonderful opportunity for them.  Progressives have fantasies of being able to be self-righteous and finger-pointing, and won't miss an opportunity to do so -- it is more important to them, than to see to it that society is improved.

 

The leading lights of Progressivism have quickly used the shooting to hurl abuse at Sarah Palin and the dreaded Tea Party.  Paul Krugman, a supposed man of prestige, has shown himself to be a politcal hack of the most vile kind by doing this  If that is the way Krugman engages in political rhetoric, it certainly says a lot about his Economic reasoning -- it must verge on hysteria.