It's pretty ironic, however, that Krugman slams the GOP for overhyping threats and using fear as a political tool, because that's exactly what he's doing in this column. So much so, in fact, it seems Krugman believes that President Giuliani would be more of a threat to the country than Islamic terrorists or a nuclear armed Iran.
Other than the fact that the last sentence represents a point-of-view that accurately represents reality, one wonders at Bevan's point. Do we fear a non-existent threat, or do we fear the implications of electing a sociopath to the White House? That is the real choice before us, should Giuliani get the Republican nod (I do not believe it will happen, by the way). It isn't "fear-mongering", either. It is a stark representation of the reality we will face in next year's election, whoever the Republican nominee is: Do we choose to set aside fear, or do we succumb to fear to those who pander to our most base feelings?
For the right, there is this bogeyman, the Islamic Threat To The Western World. To the rest of us, there is the horrid leadership of George W. Bush, war without end and without purpose, and the erosion of our national life accompanying the final demise of our Constitution. It seems to me the choice, both this stark and this clear, is a no-brainer. It seems that way to most Americans, too. Yet, the right is so wedded to this President and this war, they cannot but dig deeper the hole in which they continue to live. One of our hopes is simple - they continue to do so through next November. And, of course, offer up more "commentary" such as this.
