The same morning President Barack Obama announced he’s running for re-election, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty countered with a video rebuttal. Like his previous Hollywood-style offerings, this one combines a cinematic soundtrack with quick-cut editing. This time it’s a compilation of doom-and-gloom footage — complete with a clip of lightning ominously striking the White House — about unemployment, foreclosures and high gas prices that includes Pawlenty’s respond to Obama’s “win the future” rhetoric: “How can America win the future when we’re losing the present?” But as Iowa Democrats criticize the video’s “Nighttime in America’ pessimism, Slate’s David Weigel notes something else about the spot: The inclusion of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Aside from Pawlenty, Krugman is one of only two people shown in the video; “Washington has given up on the jobs picture,” he says. But Weigel notes that Krugman is an odd inclusion, because he’s not on “the same page as Pawlenty when he talks about the economy.” He offers the full context of Krugman’s statement:

I would just say that the aftermath of a terrible financial crisis, and this was the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, is always a prolonged period of weak growth. And the tragedy is that Washington has given up on the jobs picture. It’s not that — it’s not a failure of policy. I think the policies that we have undertaken made things less bad than they would have been. But here we are with still terrible unemployment rate, 37 weeks the average unemployed person is unemployed. And no interest in Washington about doing anything to create jobs.

In a post called Pawlenty “Accidentally Endorses Keynesian Economics,” Weigel notes: “When [Krugman] says ‘Washington’ has given up he is criticizing Obama but he’s criticizing him for conceding the House Republicans’ argument that a massive spending cut, not more stimulus spending, is what’s needed right now.”

Meanwhile, Democrats in Iowa, America’s first caucus state, are quick with a response. “’Nighttime in America’ is a lousy idea for a bumper sticker and an
even worse idea of leadership,” says Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Norm Sterzenbach in a statement. Given his record of debt and failure in Minnesota it’s not surprising that Tim Pawlenty has a gloomy and pessimistic outlook for our country and doesn’t think we can win the future. The American people, on the other hand, don’t just believe we can win the future but that with the leadership of President Obama, we already are beginning to do so.”

Watch it:

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s statement saying she wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous” during a radio interview in 2009 has become a target of liberals in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona this weekend. Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann’s neighbor to the south, said such statements have consequences, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used it as an example of the “climate of hate.”

In March 2009 on WWTC, Bachmann said, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

As Americans search for answers as to why a 22-year old would open fire at a political event, many politicians and pundits have pointed to the increase in violence-tinged rhetoric, mainly (although not exclusively) from the conservative end of the spectrum. It’s mainly liberals making that leap — law enforcement authorities have yet to release details that might shed light on the motives of the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner.

Rep. Keith Ellison told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:

“We’ve gotten so immune to it, and it doesn’t really rank in terms of priority because it’s just so ordinary, so regular,” Ellison said. “But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.”

Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” in response to President Barack Obama’s energy plans.

Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.

“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” Ellison said.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times notes that there is room for debate in American politics, but not for “eliminationist rhetoric”:

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

Powerline’s John Hinderaker wrote at the time: “[T]here is little reason to fear a catastrophic collapse in home prices. Krugman will have to come up with something much better, I think, to cause many others to share his pessimism.” They rip apart Krugman for a column that was right on the mark.

That bubble has, of course, burst. Inside, read Krugman’s conclusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has become deeply dependent on the housing bubble. The economic recovery since 2001 has been disappointing in many ways, but it wouldn’t have happened at all without soaring spending on residential construction, plus a surge in consumer spending largely based on mortgage refinancing. …. Now we’re starting to hear a hissing sound, as the air begins to leak out of the bubble. And everyone – not just those who own Zoned Zone real estate – should be worried.

Someone got it right and someone got it wrong. It looks like TIME magazine’s 2004 Blog of the Year missed the mark.