Brokeback molehill from Krugman’s mountain

The stuff I read. Sheesh! I don’t know where to begin with this gem from Paul Krugman:

. . .in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America’s defender against gay married terrorists.

(Via Mickey Kaus.) I’ve been around for awhile, I spent decades in Berkeley and San Francisco, and in all my years, I have never known a single gay married terrorist. And now I’m told that Bush “basically” ran against them?
Where is Krugman getting such specialized knowledge? I thought he was an economist.
Anyway, as Krugman provides no definition, I had to look elsewhere.
Googling the phrase brought slightly over 200 hits. I didn’t have time to read each and every result, but my primary goal was to find a working definition of the phrase (which certainly was not invented by Paul Krugman).
As to who they are, and what they want, a comment left at the Agitator provides a clue:

Everybody watch out for the gay terrorists! The gay married terrorists, who won’t come into the country to blow things up unless their spouse gets a green card, too!

No wonder I haven’t seen any of these people. Bush has kept them out by means of a clever bureaucratic subterfuge.
A Crooked Timber comment refers to the agenda of these sneaks in the context of

the family of an unborn embryonic soldier recently killed in Iraq whose stem cells were kidnapped by gay married terrorists to be used in the creation of an animal-human hybrid.

In March, 2005, a scary headlined proclaimed “Gay married terrorists will eat your baby” but the piece is scant on details of sodomitic cannibalism.
Nearly a year ago, Daily Kos commenter made the same point as Krugman, but without a definition:

. . . gay married terrorists weren’t running for President in 2004–but that didn’t stop Bush from running against them.

Did he really?
Well, why weren’t gay married terrorists listed in CNN’s famous voter exit poll?
Might it be that two separate issues — terrorism and gay marriage — were rhetorically (“basically”) conflated by Krugman and company? What about Kerry’s statement that he and Bush had “the same position, fundamentally” on gay marriage? Unless Krugman is seriously suggesting that Kerry was for gay married terrorists, I think his phraseology represents a mountain of B.S.
So why does Krugman conclude by advising his “fellow pundits” to “face reality”?
Must we?


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Brokeback molehill from Krugman’s mountain”

  1. pikkumatti Avatar
    pikkumatti

    Krugman forgot to mention that the gay married terrorists are also Muslim. After all, the GWOT is really a war on Islam, according to him/them.
    So: Bush is defending us from “Muslim gay married terrorists”.

  2. Jon Thompson Avatar
    Jon Thompson

    Krugman is a feminine hygiene product. As an economist, I’m blown away by his ignorance, stupidity, and just plain insanity.

  3. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Jon, I’ll leave it to you to criticize his economic theories, and I’m glad I didn’t, as I’d have been out of my league!