Visitor logs: Knock, knock, knockin’ on Barry’s door
Who’s there?
In another business-as-usual Friday night document dump, the White House released logs on 110 White House visitors and trumpeted “transparency like you’ve never seen before.”
The self-congratulatory announcement conveniently omits that Obama originally blocked the logs’ release and only disclosed them under threat of lawsuit.
Also, this “unprecedented” disclosure is severely limited:
Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.
The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback…A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.
Let’s dive into the data dump.
*ANDY STERN. If you’ve been following my reporting and Culture of Corruption work on Obama’s special friends at the SEIU, you won’t be surprised to learn that one of the most frequent visitor knocking on Barry’s door over the past several months was…SEIU president Andy Stern.
They really just need to set up a cot for him at 1600 Pennsylvania. Stern clocked in with 22 visits, including seven with the president, one with the vice president, and meetings with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Biden chief of staff Ron Klain, OMB director Peter Orszag, health czar aide Jennifer Cannistra, and Valerie Jarrett’s high-powered aide and Chicago fund-raiser Tina Tchen.
As I’ve noted from Day One, Big Labor’s investment in Obama has paid off mightily.
*GEORGE SOROS. And let there be no doubt that other far Left kingpins have easy access to this White House. Billionaire George Soros dropped in on David Lipton, Obama’s special assistant for international economic affairs and a longtime Treasury bureaucrat in past Democrat administrations whose contact with Soros goes back to at least 1998.
Soros visited Lipton on February 25, just a few days after he made international headlines for statements at Columbia University about the global financial collapse, and again on March 25, the day he was quoted around the world gloating about “having a very good crisis.”
Soros also met with National Economic Council director Larry Summers and Valerie Jarrett’s gal Tina Tchen.
Inquiring minds want to know: Did Petrobras come up?
*JEFFREY IMMELT. GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt popped in for meetings with OMB director Peter Orszag and economic adviser Austan Goolsbee. Immelt serves on Obama’s economic advisory board. He also promoted smart grid programs at the White House — and then turned around at touted them on GE’s broadcast subsidiaries at NBC, CNBC and MSNBC. The perks of a left-wing corporate “news” empire.
*RACE HUSTLERS. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson checked in for various events ranging from poetry readings to congressional luaus to education and SCOTUS meetings, but “Malik H. Shabazz” in the visitor log is not the same Malik Zulu Shabazz who heads up the thug racketeers at the New Black Panther Party.
*HEALTH CARE LOBBYISTS. While far Left groups harass and demonize evil health insurance lobbyists, they’re more than welcome at the White House. UnitedHealth lobbyist Steve Elmendorf is listed five times and Alston & Bird “resource” (the kinder, gentler euphemism for lobbyist) Tom Daschle is listed 11 times.
*PAUL KRUGMAN. The NYT columnist spent two hours with Obama on April 27. Gen. McChrystal got 30 minutes.
*PHILIP GARA LAMARCHE. Another far Leftist philanthropist with repeat access to the White House, he’s listed nine times (two under “Gara LaMarche” and seven under “Philip G LaMarche.” LaMarche is President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies. As I reported in June, LaMarche is a George Soros acolyte whose charity pitched in $10 million to help fund the astroturf Health Care Action Now group. LaMarche met with Valerie Jarrett for hours-long meetings on two disclosed occasions. Last year, LaMarche’s group donated $18 million to a Chicago charity headed by Jarrett.
*SCOTT LEVENSON. Matthew Vadum notes the visit by ACORN spokesman Levenson with SEIU/ACORN operative-turned-White House political director Patrick Gaspard.
Membership in radical Left circles has its privileges.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama Chief of Staff: No More Compromise on Contraceptive Mandate
February 12, 2012 04:26 PM by Doug Powers
114 Comments
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 CommentsOn Capitol Hill today: Union members testify against forced dues racket
February 8, 2012 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Categories: ACORN Watch,Health care,MoveOn.org,SEIU,Valerie Jarrett
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
At least we know what Krugman was doing. I hope the door was locked.
Communists with Cash = Unlimited Access
None of these names are very suprising.
I would like to know the names that may have been “forgotten” to be written down.
General McChrystal gets 2.
Priorities.
I’ll bet there will be some Blue Dog Democrats whose names won’t be on the visitor’s list and will probably enter through the back door as Obama brow beats them into voting for his Obamacare.
These Blue Dogs are toothless wonders who like the dogs they are, return to their own vomit and lap it up after a show of mild rebellion.
One name that will never be seen on the visitor log, or guest list…
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3:20&version=NKJV
McChrystal is 7,000 miles away. Andy Stern is 9 blocks away.
Geographies.
If the president wants to talk to one of his Combatant Commanders, distance is no object.
Again: priorities.
Nor is actual physical presence. Its called a phone.
These people are so arrogant ant careless that there should be an easy paper trail for investigators to follow. Now all we need is an honest Justice Department to address the necessary investigations. But what we’ll get is more obstruction and “right wing” scare talk.
Remember, no post mortem of the subprime crisis has ever taken place. What Bin Laden tried to do, the Democrats fully accomplished with the help of Soros and their allies on Wall Street.
Disclosure is severely limited? Why that can not be true-perhaps He Who Has Won One is merely waiting for C-Span to find a time slot for such discloser-perhaps all the Bills posted before signing have clogged the White House web site and they are waiting for more servers.
My my but IF disclosure is severely limited then He Who Has Won One has told us something that is not true. Has the Botox B!tch of the Most Ethical Congress Ever been notified of this? Dingy Harry?
But NOW we have the list
We shall check it twice
Come our turn
We shall know
Who is naughty or nice
Come our turn
We must be Stern
But not purple
(really doesn’t rhyme much does it)
Whataya bet Newt comes in by way of servants entrance?
Yes, Chap, and they also have secure VTC. However, some things require a face-to-face. The president can say “I want to see Gen McChrystal here tomorrow” and it will happen.
But there’s nothing like addressing a little man face to face. It’s much more constructive and informative don’t you think?
Yes. At great inconvenience to McChrystal and at great disruption to his work. I am not saying phone or VTC is as good as face to face, but I think, given certain realities, it is certainly an acceptable substitute.
Actualy at the time of the 30 min meeting, the general was in england and obama was in holland I believe.
Thats about 200 miles. A helicopter ride.
Obama probably would have prefered to have never met the guy considering how he was ignoring his memos.
120 minutes (Krugman) vs 25. Back to priorities.
Or meet in Brussels – halfway. But we have these priorities:
• Sept. 1: hosted a Ramadan dinner at the White House.
• Sept. 2-6: took a family vacation trip to Camp David.
• Sept. 8: met with Professional Golf Association of America champions.
• Sept. 10: met with NHL champion Pittsburgh Penguins. Also on that day, sent letters to several International Olympic Committee members to lobby for Chicago getting the 2016 games.
• Sept. 15: traveled to Pennsylvania for campaign fundraiser for Democrat Senator Arlen Specter.
• Sept. 17: hosted a screening of a portion of the Ken Burns documentary The National Parks.
• Sept. 21: appeared as the sole guest on the Late Show with David Letterman.
• Oct. 2: traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago 2016 Olympics. Didn’t get them.
• Oct. 5: met with doctors assembled in Rose Garden; doctors were provided white coats to create appearance of united support for president’s health care reform.
• Oct. 7: played basketball with assorted Cabinet members.
• Oct. 9th: spoke to nation upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
• Oct. 10: spoke at dinner for gay rights organization.
• Oct. 13: attended “Fiesta Latina” concert on White House lawn.
• Oct. 14: spoke at event celebrating establishment of the Edward Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate, which is reportedly being funded with $20 million diverted from defense spending.
• Oct. 15: spoke at San Francisco fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee.
• Oct. 20: spoke at New York City Democrat fundraiser; made headlines by opining that Republicans “….just kinda, sometimes, do what they’re told.”
• Oct. 21: traveled to New Jersey to attend fundraiser for Democrat Governor Jon Corzine.
• Oct. 23: traveled to Boston to attend fundraiser for Democrat Governor Patrick, and to Connecticut for fundraiser for ethically challenged Democrat Senator Chris Dodd.
• Oct. 25: golfed at Fort Belvoir.
• Oct. 26: shortened White House meeting with Afghanistan advisors to attend two Democrat fundraisers in Florida.
But then, The Waffler never has had anythig really important that he can’t skip out of, right?
Don’t forget the 3 hours that Olberduffus and Madcow got.
Among the famous names that stood out on the brief list were Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the radical New Black Panther Party, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.
But they could have been “false positives”.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114727
Oy. I am not going to argue “length of face to face conversations” in an age when anyone can be connected with anyone else in the world instantaneously, in live video even.
The only thing I have to say about Krugman is: what is he? An economist. You may think Obama, and Krugman, are wrong about economics, but damned straight it is and should be a priority.
Did you actually read MM’s post?
Shabazz, and the others you named, ARE false positives.
Otherwise was in makeup between tv appearances.
We all know that Obama is a weak president, simply because he doesn’t have any experience other than being a community organizer; hardly a resume. Now that he has “played out his hand” with what he wants to do, he has to rely on his friends and stronger politicians to tell him what to do next. Be prepared for a lot more “uhs and duhs” as the next 3 years passes by. The radical left controls the WH and Obama is just the figurehead.
Agreed. Krugman’s successes as an economist will have no effect on Obama’s approval ratings or reelection chances – McCrystal’ successes in Afghanistan do and will.
Ummmm, you don’t think Obama’s economic policies will affect his approval rating or reelection chances?
Really?
While I don’t disagree with your list and the conclusion that Obama isn’t really “working”, I’d much prefer he just keeps doing that useless stuff (in fact doulble or triple it) instead of damaging the country more by the continued march away from the Constitution. Let us not forget though, he can’t do it alone, he has had lots of help from within government at every level as well as a dumbed down citizenry that doesn’t think of actions and consequences.
President Affirmative Action
NO NO NO
The government’s job is not to oversea economics. Where do you get that notion? Can you show me in the constitution where that is a function of government?
Obama’s will, less so after ten years of sitting parked in Afghanistan & w/ nada to show for it, but Krugman’s commenting and offering of unheeded (thankfully, he’s a terrible economist) on it will not.
Then why doesn’t The B.O. just phone a friend when he needs socialist “fixes” to real world economic issues?
Obama had a chance to be a great leader. He could have pointed to the failures of the Bush Administration and chosen to be a leader moving into the 21st century. He can let failing businesses die. He can pass the FairTax so socialist class warfare goes away when the income tax goes away. He can cut government spending.
Instead, he has chosen to be Dear Leader and all of his Marxist-Leninist policies will do nothing but turn the United States into a typical socialist quagmire.
someone above said it very cogently “commies with cash, come on down.” and you race pimps are welcome too.
Oops! “…but Krugman’s commenting and offering of unheeded [advice](thankfully, he’s a terrible economist) on it will not.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Clause 5. At the very least.
Chap, you believe that ‘regulating Commerce among the several states’ includes giving billions of taxpayer money to failing companies? Firing the CEO of private corporations and appointing a new board? Nullifying legally binding contracts, and telling companies how much they can pay their executives? Transfering ownership of private companies to labor unions?
Dexter Alarius – I’m with you. Obeyme sent a message that HE and only HE has the intelligence to oversee and manage the war in Afghanistan. He didn’t show Gen McChrystal any respect at all. Yet, he bows and scrapes for 7 visits to the SEIU LABOR UNION? Please, Chap, give it a rest about distance and meetings…
Dexter,
That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the government has any power for economic policy. You stated it doesn’t. It clearly does by the plain language of the Constitution.
And besides, whether or not you think the President or Congress HAS the power, the reality is they are (and always have) exercising it. And my only point was those decisions will certainly affect his approval ratings and reelection chances.
Nice try but I’d posit that none of the current federal level of economic intervention was what the founders had in mind when they wrote those words.
Given their explicit statements on limited federal government in other places, their meaning of a word such as “regulate” and your meaning, apparently are quite different.
These political dogs are using the providing for the General Welfare clause of the Constitution to justify their unwanted, power-grabbing actions.Remember, Nancy Pelosi, when questioned about the constitutionality of all this crap they are orchestrating, said, “Are you serious? This is a non-question.” To use the regulating commerce clause is IMHO a real stretch…
Chap – I grant you that they do exercise economic power regularly. I only am suggesting that they far overstep their constitutional authority.
Do you understand that I was not arguing for or against that point at all?
Can we accept that there are IN FACT economic policies that Obama is or has formulated?
Can we accept that these economic policies will IN FACT affect his approval polls and reelection chances? Hell the fact that you don’t think he has the right to do this and thus dislike the policies proves my point.
Chap,
That was ConservativesRus that made the statement about economics.
Back to your point, though. Krugman has not responsibility for the nation’s economic health. He’s an economist, as you said, but is not part of the administration. DBNinKY was correct in his statement that Krugman’s success has no effect on Obama’s re-election chances. If the subject were Geitner, then that is a different story. Obama can seek, and Krugman can offer, economic advice all day long, but Krugman is responsible for squat.
Gen McChrystal, however, is responsible for the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. His advice and action carries more weight in actual success of the administration. That was DBNinKY’s point.
Errah
He was seen wearing a blue dress. Something about smuggling out cigars!
What do you think they were doing in the Oval Office? Throwing around ideas for the jacket cover of Krugman’s next book?
Or was maybe Obama discussing with Krugman his thoughts on economic policy which can, and has in the past, influence Obama’s real decisions?
Chap, you’re missing the point, perhaps deliberately. Krugman has no responsibility. None. He is not part of the administration. He has no power. He does not set or enforce policy. He is a private citizen.
Gen McChrystal is an officer in the Executive branch of the federal government. He IS an instrument of foreign policy. He executes the CINC’s strategy and plans.
Do you not see the difference?
Errah, aren’t Krugman and Robert Reich the same liberal crapweasel with economics degrees. Anyone who seeks either of these two buffoon’s economic advice is a dolt!
Depends on what the meaning of IS is.
No. But he has the ear of the man who does on a very important topic. And who Obama listens to on the economy is very much tied to the success of his administration.
That is my only point. I don’t care whether or not you think face to face time is somehow a useful rubric with which to judge priorities. Because I think that is hogwash.
Chap – unless I missed something somewhere, I was unaware we were discussing approval polls or re-election chances.
My original post was only commenting on it is not the governments job to control economics.
Original query from whence this all began.
FWIW, the controversy came up when Gen McChrystal admitted he had only “spoken” to the President once, 70 days previous to the interview. Would “spoken to” be a useful rubric with which to judge priorities?
When does the man have time to work if he spends all his time with investors er donors and with news media?
{^_^}
Much better, yes. Valid point.
I will concede your point about Krugman being an economist. Even if he is also a liberal op-ed columnist.
However, how telling is it that McChrystal warrants such little time compared to all of the others? American lives hang in the balance with regards to Afghanistan, yet a union boss and civil rights activists warrant more attention. Of course, those soldiers will probably not vote to re-elect him anyway, so their lives aren’t important, are they?
What I was saying was that face to face time does not equal total time. Though Dexter had a nice response to that.
The less He Who Has Won One works the better for all honest people.
Sorry, that’s just wrong. THat crosses the line wrt advocating or condoning violence. THat’s not what Conservatives are about.
BarryO and his motivations are more transparent all the time, even if his administration is not.
LOL–I see one may not use the word
W*O*O*K*I*K*E*E
without having said post removed…whassup with dat?
wookikee?
Damn, took me all morning to think of it too. OK, no more wrong. Can I still use the term Relevant Reverends?
chap,
Regarding the requested “surge” for Afghanistan:
* October was the deadliest month for our troops in Afghanistan.
* Photo op with caskets. Gives the appearance of concern about American soldiers’ lives. 17 of the 18 parents refused to let their children’s caskets be photographed. Side note – Bush visited returning caskets at every opportunity. In secrecy.
* The decision to approve/deny the surge has to wait until after the runoff.
* Abdullah drops out. Now it will have to wait until after the Asian trip.
Yes, it’s a difficult decision to send troops in harm’s way, but I think the decision would be a little easier without the distraction of Denzel and Jay Z stopping by for a visit, don’t you?
LOL; got carried away with the asterisk thingy, chap. Probably a good thing, too!
No, he didn’t.
***
KNOCK! KNOCK!
***
Who’s there?
***
SARAH’CUDA!!
***
INCOMING!!!
***
John Bibb
***
President Bush, as an officer, understood what was appropriate.
I assume, looking at Krugman, you were trying to reference a furry Star Wars character.
It is indeed a curious word to block.
I’ve no beef with Bush’s approach. But you think attending the transfer ceremony is INAPPROPRIATE?
You are judged by the company you keep.
Nuff said.
No, I think taking an entourage of photographers and journalists with you to capture your show of ‘caring’ is.
Although, it’s good to see he has finally learned how to salute properly.
There are photogs from at least the AP, at EVERY ceremony, in case the family consents. Also, there is a government crew that films and photographs each ceremony. Many families, even if they do not want the press covering it, want the ceremony taped for posterity.
believe me they have face-to-face secure communications via sat or web…he can talk all he wants…you are absolutely correct…it isn’t one of his priorities…paying back the unions, power grabs, and health care are highest on his inexperienced agenda and not necessarily in any order…jan 20th 2009 transparency died…
chap,
17 of 18 families refused to consent. But, it only takes one.
Yes, Bush did attend. I trust Liz Cheney more than a 2006 interview.
BTAIM, it still left the impression of contrivance for the purpose of appearances. Tacky.
“The most important thing is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” – I’m too lazy to look up who said that.
I am aware. As is their right under the new policy.
You trust Liz Cheney over Bush on whether Bush visited Dover?
Yes, it comes down to humility. Bush didn’t want to blow his own horn.
Dead Americans as a Photo Op says volumes. At least the man did not mock the dead as so many Leftist do-not in public anyway.
40+ years and I hate the hippies no less than day one of hating hippies. I still wait for the hour of revenge-BIG TIME. And of that I will not be dissuaded. Violence? Only when those scum get bold enough to make their move and force the issue. Then it will be our turn-those few of us left and long of tooth but strong of heart.
Let them put me on a list, I really do not care.
Come now. You are saying Bush lied to the Stars and Stripes? Based upon some off the cuff remark by the daughter of the VP? Or based on the humility of someone who believes he was called by God to run for President?
President Bush was never asked if he went to Dover, only if he went to funerals.
Stars and Stripes article.
If you’ll notice in the article you linked, there is no corroboration for the claim that GW didn’t go to Dover. The entire paragraph is set up to make Obama look like he did something above and beyond what Bush did. Of course, that’s true. He used it as a photo op.
I can hardly ever keep all those Malik Shabazz’ straight.
Wait – I’ve never met one Shabazz in my life, and Obama knows more than one well enough that they visit him at the White House?
I’d like to know who Obama has met with when he has travelled to Chicago…
I have a hunch that both Bill Ayers and “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright have had face-to-face time with Barack Hussein Obama since January 20, 2009.
Hmmmm… I may have to grant you this. Grudgingly. I would still say that it is a fair implication to make that he did not visit Dover but the CBS article I linked to either did not properly source that specific claim, or overstated its case if it was going off the S&S article.
Every person that visits the White House, including tour groups, is subject to the disclosure.
In principle no.
However, I do not think press coverage in general is appropriate on that occasion. Chap, if past Presidents have also had press coverage at such a ceremony I would be equally critical. However, that is simply a personal opinion, nothing more.
I do have REAL heartburn with Obama rendering a hand salute as the caskets were removed. He may be the Commander in Chief, but he is at that point, by definition, a civilian. He never wore the uniform.
If you have not worn the uniform you have not earned the right to render a hand salute. He should have simply stood there or placed his hand over his heart.
Reagan started this saluting business by the President. It is interesting to note that I do not believe I have ever seen a picture of President Eisenhower saluting. I think Ike had it right.
By not saluting Eisenhower emphasized that the Commander in Chief in our model of government is a civilian. However, any veteran who is President has earned the right to salute. For them it is optional. If you have not served, you do not merit the right to salute.
True, but really, how many Shabazz’ would you realistically expect to visit the White House?
Why are you assuming there was more than one?
Yeah, it was probably zombie Malcolm X stopping by to say hello.
Ultimately, yes–discussing PR strategies to promote collectivism
No, not jacket covers, how to waffle even more on Afghanistan. Using the Dover thing as a backdrop – The Spineless one used that episode to say ”it was sobering”, as if it was never sobering. Using that, he will waffle even more, because you know he is such a caring leader and brilliant tactician and such serious decisions need to be fully analyzed. He call for more ideas, more input etc etc, waffle even more, drag this out find reasons to travel more and take time off.
Gosh, where does the man find time to make ACTUAL decisions what with his ear being bent by his fellow liberal extremist travellers, those multiple campaign stops, and games of hoops? Can we say screwed up priorities?
And yet the poor man is looking more and more gaunt according to Drudge. He looks like a lightweight more and more.
aloha; i know 27 shabazz’s. nosmo king shabazz, malik h and malik k shabazz, george, george, and george forman shabazz, and my other brother darrell shabazz. we were homies in da hood in philly.
OT- but anyone know why the regular string of posts isn’t appearing to the side of or below the main article the way it usually does?
And if a phone is good enough for in-theatre commanders, then what’s keeping Soros and Andy Stern (SEIU has its its HQ on Mass Ave in DC, no?) from picking up one?
If face-time doesn’t matter, why is it so important to them?
I was thinking the same thing.
————————-
After Obie won the election, I said, “Now we’ll see who owns him.”
And we are.
Already asked and answered.
First, I don’t know what you would base this on as Obama totally ignored Krugman’s call for the government to spend trillions more in deficit monies than the Obama administration would commit to – so where’s the proof Krugman’s advice is even taken seriously by the WH in economic policy?
Second, economists like Krugman merely predict economic outcomes based on current factors and fixed equations, so how do Krugman’s successes or failures at doing this affect Obama’s political future – especially when there’s little to no proof the latter accepts the economic opinions of the former?
Third, Krugman is a poor economist – besides his being a big government Keynesian, he served on a panel of economic advisers to President Bush that failed to properly alert the WH to the pending ’08 meltdown – who has no authority or powers to direct the nation’s economy (unless he was recently appointed to some czar position or something that I haven’t heard about) – his advice should be avoided.
My apologies to General McChrystal for earlier omitting the /h/ from his surname; for all his service, I should at least spell his name correctly.
Krugman may not have gotten as much as he wanted, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t listened to. But you are correct in pointing out he is a Keynsian. One of the most influential today. Doesn’t the fact that he GOT so much time with Obama prove his influence? Or do you think Obama is in the habit of wasting his time talking to people whose advice he knows he is going to ignore?
The Nobel committee would like to diff— oh wait. Don’t think that will carry much weight here.
You f-in communist.