But then Krugman is the exception. Why has he lasted so long there? I recall Doug saying that Krugman was hired in the '90s in large part due to having pro-globalization views at the time (which he's since changed course on). Is it that he goes after Republicans enough of the time that Democratic partisans see him as on their team? Or simple inertia?
Joel
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 11:52 PM, Joel Schlosberg wrote:
>
> > Someone like Thomas L. Friedman is either a brilliant stealth parodist of
> > liberal imperialism who has flawlessly pretended to believe its
> > self-justification mythology for decades without slipping up his act, or
> > just a not-very-bright believer in that shit. Occam's razor strongly
> > suggests that it's the latter.
>
> He rose to his level of incompetence. He had it very easy. Nobody could
> possibly be as awful as A.M.Rosenthal. on the other side you have that
> pathetic little David Brooks dragging his tail along still deep in the
> shadow of William Safire.
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
>
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures.
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>