I might hesitate to call the fixation on Krugman of these two rhetorically-challenged bloggers "stalking," if their criticisms were at all substantial, but they rarely if ever are. More often than not, they consist of personal attacks on Krugman, and snide remarks about one of his remarks. For example, in a recent post, Luskin's entire critique of a Krugman article consists of the following:
Hey, why not suggest that Kerry claim he would have arrested Mohammed Atta on Septemer 10, 2001?
This post, which is much longer, making its lack of substance even more impressive, is another of my favorites. In it, Luskin describes Krugman as "America's most dangerous liberal pundit." This hyperbole is so patently absurd, one automatically believes that it is meant ironically, but the rest of the post, and Luskin's blog in general, make it clear that it's not.
Here is a post on Krugman by Burgess-Jackson, in its entirety:
Paul Krugman's hysteria becomes more pronounced with each passing day. He is beside himself with frustration and rage that the American people don't see what he sees: that President Bush is endangering them rather than making them safer. See here. If John Kerry takes Krugman's advice, Kerry will suffer Michael Dukakis's fate. But deep down, Krugman won't mind. It will give him four more years to do what he does best: spew hatred.
Project much, Keith? Who knew that in addition to being the world's most juvenile philosopher, Burgess-Jackson is also a psychoanalyst? If only this were Keith's worst effort. At least here he does not show a complete ignorance of economics, as he does when he asks, "By the way, who cares about the budget deficit?" in the following post:
Paul Krugman calling someone dishonest is precious. See here. He is the most intellectually dishonest person I have known in my forty-seven years. By the way, who cares about the budget deficit? Somebody give me a reason to care. If we keep taxes to a minimum, as President Bush is doing, it will force us to think clearly about what's important. Nothing focused my mind and disciplined my expenditures during law and graduate school more than poverty.
Ah yes, a personal anecdote. There's no better criticism of economic commentary than one person's experience! Precious.
If you think these posts might be unrepresentative of the two stalkers' comments on Krugman, you need only read their blogs for a few days to see that you are wrong. There's no attempt at substantive critiques; and little effort to criticize what Krugman actually says (and when there is, it usually consists of the sort of sardonic comments quoted from the Luskin posts). So, whatever Luskin and his lawyers think, the stalker label looks pretty appropriate to me. If their posts were motivated by anything more than an irrational Krugman fetish, one would expect substantive critiques of Krugman's anti-Bush articles. You'll find little if any of this.