Pat Caddell is a lifelong Democrat. He is a public opinion pollster & adviser who worked for Democrat presidential candidates Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, George McGovern, Gary Hart, and Jerry Brown. His credentials on the Left side of the political aisle are rock solid.
But he is also a man of principle and a proud American who only wants the best for his country. Thus, when he saw what was happening this past week, he decided he had to speak out against it. Vehemently! More here.
Caddlel is a classical democrate and Krugman is a nut job who is hates Sarah Palin because she represents a strong thinking female.
This has been a bad week for krugman first Krughthammer- its to early to check spelling – compares his mental state and now this. This is going to leave a mark.
The problem the left has with Sarah is they are using an alinsky tactic of character assignation -can I use that word anymore- and she dosn’t even bend let alone brake. This why they hate her she shines light on the socialest maddness they represent.
That or Krugman and Matthew’s are in love with her and are uppset that she can not see their inner greatness.
Correction: Compares his mental should read guestions his mental. cheers
Caddell is one of that rare vanishing breed; a genuine liberal. Not one of the frothy-mouthed culture warrior that hide under the liberal banner.
The traditional liberal is as attuned to reason as his conservative opponent and there is much common ground where patriotism and respect for the constitution are concerned.
Degenerate left culture war smear artists like Krugman have no common ground with the traditional liberal ideology – least of all ethics and principle.
“I’ve worked for Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, George McGovern, Gary Hart, and Jerry Brown. Krugman is definitely an a-hole! ”
LOL!
Thank you for giving me some background info on Caddell. I only watched the clip via an Ace comment (or at Weasel Zippers) and, while agreeing with him fully, I assumed he was a libertarian or conservative.
Obozo got a week+ off from the regular examination of it policies and their consequences.
While he orchestrated a Revival Tent style memorial, the unemployment situation worsened, the US has been warned about a credit raring reduction, his administration continues to operate without an energy policy, continues to spend at reckless levels and maintains his telepathic hold on much of the MSM who are afraid they’ll be less liberal if the contradict a Black president.
But time is up and reality arises once again to spank the Dumbocrats.
Can you say $100/bbl oil?
Occam said “Caddell is one of that rare vanishing breed; a genuine liberal”. Exactly and the same situation exists here in Canada.
Caddell quite often appears on Fox News as a Democratic Party spokesman and like Juan Williams is a liberal you can have a reasonable debate with.
Trudeau moved Canada so far to the left that today’s Liberal leadership is far removed from classical liberalism and as we have seen is Marxist in ideology today. Today’s Canadian Liberal Party is not much different from the NDP.
He’s right; Krugman is an @$$hole.
Ken (Kulak) @ 9:54 AM said:
“Trudeau moved Canada so far to the left that today’s Liberal leadership is far removed from classical liberalism and as we have seen is Marxist in ideology”
Then you should get William Gairdner’s latest book “The Trouble With Canada…Still” in which he observes Canada being torn between 2 irreconcilable forces of political policy. One is the PET-NDP top down statist collectivism the other the bottom-up individualist populism of the right and center.
Gairdner warns we must restore political balance (move the center right and reject Marx-addled liberalism)) if we hope to keep individual rights and civil liberty intact in our society.
I think the Liberal Media’s Sara hatefest is going to bite them in the arse, the west straigtened up off their sofas and said wait a minute the News is being contrived and falsified to score cheap political points and frankly I think the court of public opinion is going to punish those outlets by banishing them into financial ruin. The Democrats have been hyjacked by the Progressive Left, what we are seeing in the media is an alliance with the progressive/regressive leftards and Liberal Media and nothing good can come out of that alliance. Greece and England have learned a hard lesson via being ruled by the demented progressives.
He is spot on, Krugman isn’t an economist. No matter how much he may think so.
NewsBusters goes after Krugman and the NYT. A non-response, response follows.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/01/14/open-letter-new-york-times-regarding-paul-krugman
Spot on Rose, a little spike in interest and most of these purveyors of hate and lies will be toast. Pat Cadell is like Juan Williams, a level headed leftie, nobody minds a good debate with an intelligent opposite thinker, but deep inside most people know what is right and what is wrong. The path of Soros and his minions is wrong.
From your article —
// Fox News Channel regular and former Carter pollster Pat Caddell has a platform on cable television to espouse his views.
On Fox News Channel’s Friday airing of “Red Eye,”
[…]
during the “Halftime Report” segment, “Red Eye” ombudsman Andy Levy had this exchange with Caddell:
LEVY: Pat, you called Krugman a real “a-hole.” New tone please, new tone? We’re operating under a new tone.
CADDELL: I’m sorry, but the guy is outrageous. He’s the most disingenuous human being I know. And not only that, he’s not even a real economist.
LEVY: I agree with you, but what you need to say is that, “Krugman is an opening at the opposite end of his digestive tract from his mouth, the function of which is to control the expulsion of feces. //
It’s a quarter to three, there’s no one in the place
Just you & me
Let’s be a discrace …
Not a real economist. Just a Nobel Memorial Prize winner.
Does Caddell have a day job, I wonder?
I don’t believe Krugman is anything but human. His experience and education has led him to create and or accept the ideology he now acts upon. His deficiency in experience of things greater than himself have implanted a conceit that is common amongst the “educated” urban class. After all if you do nothing but read a few books without in anyway mitigating the nonsense you just read with real life experience you will wind up in the la la land of most atheists. However that ideology has become, in Krugman blind bigotry and hatred. In his tiny little head space any ill or evil is the result of those who do not believe as he believes.
I love the politically correct version of “a**hole”:
LEVY: I agree with you, but what you need to say is that, “Krugman is an opening at the opposite end of his digestive tract from his mouth, the function of which is to control the expulsion of feces.”
Agreed occam. Caddell is the old style liberal with whom one can have a conversation, likewise Juan Williams. It’s revealing that they get the most play on Fox News Network. I disagree with them, but one can imagine a fruitful and respectful conversation with them about those areas of disagreement. Often the disagreements lie in questions of degree, particularly with respect to government influence. Krugman, by contrast is a partisan so blinded by his intense hatred of any and all opposition that he’s rendered himself utterly delusional. His comments, and those of many neo-lib commentators may well have crossed the line from fair comment to libel. Palin should sue their a##es off. Churchill didn’t balk at suing those who libeled him during his political career.
dizzy
You realize that the Nobel is pretty much equal to the prize in a Cracker Jack box since Gore and Obama were given them.
Stupidity has wiped out it’s prestige.
The NDP still is targeting Stephen Harper on their website.
If this is inciting violence, why isn’t there a North America wide jihad by liberals to remove this type of imagery?
Why are we still seeing headlines with this type of language?
Speaking of A$$hole$, youse are not including Liberal$ IggyRaeDonoloKatMeat, et al?
Anyway, here’s Peter Buttenweiser, et al:
““They are getting organized in Chicago to start a massive two-year campaign, which I believe will be successful, but has extraordinarily large challenges in some of the major states,” said Philadelphia philanthropist Peter Buttenweiser, who hosted one of the first Obama presidential fundraisers in 2007 and is in talks to organize an early one for the re-election.
Obama’s team is running into resistance in at least one key fundraising hub — New York City, where some of Obama’s biggest 2008 backers have bitterly protested last year’s passage of financial reform legislation and what they perceived as an unfair bad-mouthing of bankers during the debate.
Obama was scheduled to go to New York this week to meet with about 25 large bundlers and supporters – and maybe clear the air – but that event was canceled after the Tucson shootings at the congressional event of Rep.Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), according to one prominent New York fundraiser.
In other places, such as Pennyslvania, top donors say Obama has to get in line behind other candidates who need the cash more urgently. And some donors are worried that the party has been slow off the mark in responding to the latest onslaught of GOP fundraising, millions of dollars raised from secret donors by a variety of Republican outside groups, including two associated with former Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47596.html
Who knew O’narcissist was cash-challenged?
Beware the Ears, the Lips, the Eyes, the Lies, etc.
Krugman and other liberals have basically admitted that they have to stoop to these lows to promote their ideology because they have no other options.
They can’t promote it logically and rationally.
Krugman, would fit in perfectly at the Toronto Star or Globe if fired by NYT, Olbermann and Maddow would fit nicely with our CBC, even sloped foreheaded Maher could have a “comedy” show right after little mosque on the prarie. There are always openings in Canada for this rot that has infested American media, God knows Travers Bourques and Simpsons fingers could use a break, and those angry looks on their faces must get hard to keep up. Tom Freidman would be in globull warming utopia here in Canada, where we are now installing solar panels and windmills quicker than Europe, worked out well for them didin’t it.
Curious: you forgot yassir Arafat.
If the book “what it takes” an account of the ghwb/dukakis campaign is accurate, Caddell has been a loose cannon within the democratic party for a very long time. His credentials in this namecalli g context are hardly “rock-solid” – in fact they are quite the opposite.
Krugman’s opinions are almost always completely wrong And lately he has become even more unhinged and partisan. But caddells opinion of him, taken in context of what caddell has said about others in the past, carry very little weight.
Charles krauthammers opinions on krugman are a very different matter and thus his criticisms are far more devastating.
That is compounded with the NYTs sin of letting krugman screen those commenting on his columns or closing them completely when he sees fit. Thus krugman is about as thoroughly discredited as you can be. That’s quite a fall from grace when one considers where he was just two years ago.
Re Stan @ 12:35 PM: I’ve just checked out the NDP web page: in bolded, green letters, this headline is still prominently on display:
“Layton targets Harper with national ads”
http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-targets-harper-with-national-ads
The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the infantile left takes one’s breath away. Meanwhile, like the naked Emperor, they have the highest regard for themselves.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
Too bad these people have no idea what that means. In order to process this profound truth, one would need to have some idea of the meaning of both “Lord” and “wisdom”.
As the lefties believe themselves to be the lords of their own domain and think wisdom is a TOTUS speech, it’s no wonder they continue to demonstrate their extreme immaturity. (’Too bad, we’re not even allowed to suggest they go to their rooms to think things over. Wait! “Think”? What’s that?)
“Pat Caddell: NY Times columnist Krugman ‘a flat-out asshole’”
At last, a liberal who has his facts straight.
Well, I guess I’ll be the Devil’s Advocate here. I yield to no-one in my contempt for Krugman. And I won’t dispute that that label is accurate in the colloquial use of that word.
However, that said, (and I’m no prude) how many times here have we rightly heavily criticized liberals, “progressives”, for having no better argument than to throw profanities and obscenities at conservatives? (E.g. when there were links here fairly recently to hard lefty protesters in Calif. with the “Sarah Palin is a *itch” and “Sarah Palin is a *unt” signs.)
Whenever anybody uses that kind of vocabulary, it doesn’t strengthen their argument, it just makes the person look inarticulate and vulgar. The “marketplace of ideas” responds best with reasoned arguments and statements. It also gives the best impression of the speaker/writer. As tempting as it sometimes, let’s leave the profanities and obscenities to the liberals and concentrate on speaking/writing intelligently.
RE: Krugman “not a real economist”.
1)Remember, we’re dealing with loose talk on the Red Eye.
2)Krugman’s Nobel Prize had to do with the details of International Trade.
3)Much of Krugman’s current political commentary has to do with Domestic Policy.
In other words, he’s certainly a specialist in one area of Economics, so perhaps Caddell shouldn’t have said he’s “not a real economist”. But to the extent that he uses his credential in that one area as though it renders his statements on ALL areas of economics, then no, he’s not being a good economist.
to make frequent serious comments on the details of current
Dave in paw : agree 100%. That’s in part why krauthammer’s criticisms are so much more damaging than caddells.
//dizzy
You realize that the Nobel is pretty much equal to the prize in a Cracker Jack box since Gore and Obama were given them. //
No. Since Hentry Kissinger was given it. And that was the Nobel Peace Prize.
One commedian said he quit after Henry K was given the Peace Prize, because reality had overtaken satire.
The Economics prize isn’t really a nobel at all. It is a prize given by Swedish Bankers in order to get some of the prestige of the real [science] prizes.
Still some of the people who are heroes around here have gotten it.
Meanwhile, Caddell’s credibility seems to be that he worked in the Carter administration. That would be 30-odd years ago.
Maybe they should bring back Rachel Marsden —
“Red Eye,” designed to appeal to the demographic most likely to be found on a beer-soaked dormitory couch at 2 a.m., is chock full of fart gags and homoerotic innuendo. Into this Pabst-and-poop-joke cloud of testosterone, it’s only natural that Fox would want to bring a woman. A fox, to put no finer point on it. Enter Marsden, who for several years has been featured as the “Canadian correspondent” on “The O’Reilly Factor,” who formerly decorated her website with alluring photos of herself, and who was once named “Republican Babe of the Week” by JerseyGOP.com, an honor previously bestowed on Florida chad-harpy Katherine Harris, Laura Ingraham and, of course, Ann Coulter.
Meanwhile, Caddell’s credibility seems to be that he worked in the Carter administration. That would be 30-odd years ago.
~dissy
Wrong.
His credibility is in the first sentence under the title of the thread:
Pat Caddell is a lifelong Democrat.
bartinsky, I’ve come to the conclusion that Liberals aren’t the problem it’s the progressive leftards that have hyjacked the democractic party and they are missing more than a few bricks shy of a load.
// His credibility is[…] Pat Caddell is a lifelong Democrat. //
Right.
Who is Pat Caddell?
I don’t understand the point of your last link, dissy.
I came away from your link with the impression that Caddell doesn’t like John Kerry and he cares about the Democratic Party enough to tell them when they’re wrong and they’re hurting themselves.
Are you saying that because Pat Caddell has an opinion of his own that he isn’t a lifelong Democrat who has worked on Democrat campaigns to get Democrats elected?
Being a Democrat does not mean to walk in lockstep with the party as some radicals try to drag it over a cliff.
If what you’re saying is that Democrats have to walk in lockstep then don’t you dare to ever come here again and accuse conservatives of having a hive mentality and a lack of independent views.
Pat Caddell, a DemocRat saying bad words at another DemocRat. Whoopdedoo.
dizzy said: “Meanwhile, Caddell’s credibility seems to be that he worked in the Carter administration. That would be 30-odd years ago.”
Not that credible, I agree. Because really, what credibility could there be in having once worked for the Peanut Farmer? Carter only looks good at this distance in time because only really OLD guys like me remember that a nice new Buick used to cost $4,000 US dollars.
Admittedly, he did do better than Barry, mostly because Carter is only a commie, he’s not a psycho-narcissist freakazoid commie married to a Klingon.
Anybody that believes everything written in Wikipedia could also be persuaded to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn.
// I don’t understand the point of your last link, dissy.//
I don’t think this incident or the guy involved is worth much in the way of analysis.
But since you brought it up, let’s go back to that original introductory sentence.
// Pat Caddell is a lifelong Democrat. He is a public opinion pollster & adviser who worked for Democrat presidential candidates Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, George McGovern, Gary Hart, and Jerry Brown. //
This is meant, I assume, to give him credibility when he criticises Democrats. [or, in this case, hurls abuse]
.
So, then, as the link implies, What sort of democrat is he?
In 2004, he was obviously a Fox News Democrat, as he is now. He is introduced as a “long time Democratic pollster” like now. But look at those names. Old-timers, eh? Despite the recent resurrection of a couple. It turns out that he was bounced from his own consulting firm back in 1985 [when it was six months old]
But his Fox service, as a “Democratic Balance” goes back to 2000. [he’s said he hates Clinton more than Hitchens does]. And his extravagant condemnations of Democrats go back to the early nineties.
Another source says he left the Democratic Party in 1988. And now works for Michael Bloomberg.
He’s a Democrat like Walid Shoebat is a former terrorist [In his own imagination].
// Being a Democrat does not mean to walk in lockstep with the party as some radicals try to drag it over a cliff. //
No, that’s being a Republican. [In fact, there is lot more leeway for backbiting in US politics. Can you imagine how long someone like this would last in Harper’s party?
So, then, as the link implies, What sort of democrat is he?
He’s the sort of Democrat who truely believes in the things that Democrats promise:
Liberté, égalité, fraternité-(Liberty,Equality, Brotherhood)
To Pat Caddell, these aren’t just empty phases as they are with many of the Dem elites like John Kerry who like to raise taxes and talks about raising taxes on the rich, but happens to have done nothing in his life but marry rich heiresses for their money and dodge paying taxes himself.
Caddell really believes in the social justice that the Dems sell as justification for their policies, but he doesn’t play the dirty games of the ‘New Left’ and unlike the Leftist elites actually wants to achieve those goals.
Now plug that into your thinking processes and read your link again, dissy, and ponder what Caddell’s beef with some in the Democratic Party could possibly be.
Os —
So he believes in the slogan of the French Revolution. [and thanks for that translation !]
I’ve read a bit of his output, & I don’t believe the word “equality” appears.
Fraternity is an obvious non-starter, given his anti-Democratic tirades.
And his recent name-calling has about as much to do with your three revolutionary political virtues as Trudeau’s “mangez de la merde”.
Also, others would disagree as to what he says & what his motives are —
Caddell compared The New York Times to “the czar’s secret police,” [Well, we know what Rupert Murdoch thinks of the NYT]
&
Pat Caddell split from Democratic consulting firm Caddell, Doak & Shrum in December 1985, six months after its creation [Washington Post, 12/18/85], with what The Washington Post described as an “acrimonious lawsuit.”
&
He was once — back when 8-tracks and lava lamps were the rage — a star in his party. But over time, he’s burned bridges, gone a little crazy, and seen his campaign work dry up. Then, about ten years ago, he reinvented himself as a different kind of Democratic pundit — one who thinks that just about everything Democrats say and do is morally and strategically reprehensible. And, what do you know, he’s become one of Fox’s favorite talking heads!
Pat Caddell predicting ruin for Democrats — again