And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way."
I like Paul Krugman. I haven't been all over his nuts since he won his Nobel Prize like some bloggers I could mention, but I like him. But he can be awfully prickly at times, especially, it seems, when it comes to anything to do with the intersection of Obama and Healthcare. Reading his column back during the primary - when healthcare, particularly the issue of insurance mandates, was the focus of, like, 298 straight debates between Obama and Clinton - you would've thought my man was a Republican! I think Krugman got real suspicious of Obama's capacity to realize progressive goals right then and, being a pretty cynical guy - which is a good thing! - still hasn't come around.
With this Gupta thing though, I think Krugman's making a pretty weak, round-about criticism of the appointment. He's right of course, that Gupta was wrong and looked pretty bad during the whole Sicko fiasco. Perhaps Krugman thinks that should have tanked Gupta's television career. I dunno. But that one sin is hardly a reason to swipe away the unique talents Sanjay Gupta will bring to the role of Surgeon General. For that, see Ezra Klein. To me though, I think Paul Krugman is just showing sour grapes. Michael Moore is annoying, but his basic point about healthcare was one Krugman supports. Gupta erroneously attacked Michael Moore. Gupta gets elevated and Krugman is upset, complaining about our national problem with accountability (when, ironically, Michael Moore, hardly the embodiment of honest discourse was the subject of attack). And on it goes.
1 comment:
You seen this yet? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7822643.stm
I love it when Obama acts all ghetto: "Nah, we straight" and "Not that Velveeta, I want that Cheddar cheese."
Post a Comment