Every time I think that maybe there's a little growth of appreciation for non-conservatarian views online, I run across something like this:

Is there the slightest possibility that Paul Krugman will write something other than a flat-out hit piece on the President? By my count, 17 of his last 18 columns have been precisely that, including today's.

We know. Bush is evil. Corporations are evil. Energy companies are doubly evil.

How about: Krugman is simpleminded, petty, and obsessed. That makes sense to me.

Or how about "Krugman has been highlighting pretty glaring problems in the current administration, current economic climate, and in the past of 'the MBA president', George W. Bush"? I mean, "simpleminded"? This is a new one; even Jane Galt and the rest of the Krugman watchers don't make that assertion. Honestly, does this guy even know who Krugman is? Or maybe "considering that the stock market is getting beaten like a bad monkey thanks to the sorts of corporate fraud that Bush himself was tied to and which he is expected to clean up, this sort of story is profoundly important"?

(I mean, who honestly can say something like "corporations are evil" sarcastically nowadays and still think they can get away with it?)

In any case, I get the feeling that if Blogs were popular during the Clinton administration, the constant attack columns that infested the right-wing press over far more trivial matters would get a pass. It's not about the criticism, it's that Krugman is criticizing their guy. If Krugman wants to spend every column attacking the administration (which he hasn't; the piece from last week about the little games that corporations play to inflate their earnings mentioned Bush only parenthetically), then that's his right. If the criticism needs to be made, then that's his responsibility. If it prompts more substantial investigation, then that's to his credit. Judging by the controversy swirling around Bush thanks to that column, I'd say that Krugman said what needed to be said.