Paul Krugman Is Right

Krugman hates the anti-science attitude of the Republican presidential candidates. Only Huntsman gets his approval, while Romney gets much scorn for pandering.

Let’s not forget to notice, though, that Romney has a serious chance at the nomination, while Huntsman did not. We can blame Romney, or we can blame the perverse incentives of the democratic process. As sickening as it is, I almost have to hope that Romney keeps pandering–if he stops he just throws the nomination to Bachmann or Perry.

Advertisements

About J@m3z Aitch

J@m3z Aitch is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.
This entry was posted in Perverse Incentives. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Paul Krugman Is Right

  1. D. C. Sessions says:

    Which raises the question: what does an election mean when the candidates are synthetic products of last week’s focus groups and polls?

  2. Shucks. I hoping the cowboy wins the Whitehouse. I understand he’s a cross between George W. Bush and John Hagee the Texas Theocrat. And, if we get a Republican majority with a good amount of Tea Party control in both houses, what can stop us from having the final war. Perry could be the Armageddon President.
    .

  3. Lance says:

    Krugman sees science as a priesthood that he endorses when it comports with his views.

    He is far more likely to quote simplistic ans sensational Sierra Club talking points than any actual scientific paper.

  4. ppnl says:

    Krugman sees science as a priesthood that he endorses when it comports with his views.

    Um, for example? I’m asking because I don’t know. Krugman is pretty far down on my list of people to keep up with.

Comments are closed.