Yeah, it's Krugman in the NY Times (catcalls of liberal bias), but this article pokes numeric holes in the GOP message, as well as the actual boards their platform is put together with, economically speaking.
I'm thinking primarily of this paragraph:
On one side, this elite is presumed to be a bunch of economic superheroes, able to deliver universal prosperity by summoning the magic of the marketplace. On the other side, they’re depicted as incredibly sensitive flowers who wilt in the face of adversity — raise their taxes a bit, subject them to a few regulations, or for that matter hurt their feelings in a speech or two, and they’ll stop creating jobs and go sulk...
This message confusion seems to be a feature of the GOP. America's military is the best in the world, but we have to run scared when a couple loonies in the Middle East start acting loony. The rich are so precariously placed that any regulation or taxation of that wealth will bring the whole house of cards down in a moment. Etc.
I'm generally conservative, with a social-liberal bent, but the Republican (big-R) party seems to be consistently going with this tough guy posturing, that immediately collapses into a whimpering heap at the least sign of opposition.
This seems new to me. And, more importantly, short-sighted an untenable.
What are Hubski's thoughts?