Already diagnosed with PMS (”Persistent Moonbat State), New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s health problems took a turn for the worse today when, after the publication of his latest column on Karl Rove, it was discovered that the liberal ideologue suffered from an excess of bile production in the liver.

Doctors weren’t sure if the condition was life threatening but have determined that Krugman’s judgment, rationality, and memory have all been affected. One physician familiar with the case failed to see any of those symptoms saying that the columnist’s rantings and ravings were “par for the course” and asked “how can a disease affect qualities in a patient not present in the first place?”

There were several parts of Mr. Krugman’s column that physicians pointed to as evidence of the bile condition. For instance:

What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we’re not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we’re living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

“Note the use of nonsense language such as the term ‘nonpolitical truth’ which has no meaning in any context save the brain damaged Mr. Krugman’s imagination,” said Dr. Sixpak Chopura, brother of the famed self-help guru. “I mean, let’s get real. Ask yourself is there such a thing as ‘nonpolitical truth? What does that mean?” Dr. Sixpak asked.

The good Doctor also pointed out that the Comintern, which Mr. Krugman uses as a metaphor for monolithic agreement on political positions by Republicans was in fact a strife ridden, factionalized international congress of communist organizations who couldn’t agree on the time of day much less what communism was. He mentioned that any second grader who knew how to use a computer search engine could have figured that out in 30 seconds.

Dr. Sixpak fears that Mr. Krugman’s condition may be much farther along than first feared. He points to this passage in the column that proves Krugman may be hallucinating:

Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans’ exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.

Dr. Sixpak points out that not only does Krugman fail to offer any evidence for this assertion, but that the facts contradict his charge of Republican politicization of 9/11. A search of liberal websites in the days and weeks following 9/11 fail to turn up any evidence of such politicization and instead, show a respect for the President’s restraint on the subject. This pretty much puts the lie to the statement that “ground zero was still smoldering” when the Republicans politicized the attack.

Further evidence of Mr. Krugman’s flight from reality can be found in this passage, the Doctor said:

A less insightful political strategist might have hesitated right after 9/11 before using it to cast the Democrats as weak on national security. After all, there were no facts to support that accusation.

Again, the Doctor points out the lack of evidence offered by Mr. Krugman to support such a baseless charge. In addition, he notes that there are plenty of “facts” to support the charge that the Democratic party is weak on national security including near monolithic opposition to every major weapons system in use by the Pentagon today, a 50 year campaign to undermine and weaken the CIA, a moral relativism with regards to terrorists and the states that support them, and opposition to strategic missile defense.

And that’s just for starters.

Finally, the Doctor points us to Mr. Krugman’s peroration as an example of the bile in his liver working its way through his bloodstream and affecting his brain:

But what we’re getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven’t just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson’s name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They’re now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about Mr. Rove. It’s also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush’s father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it’s about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

Where is this chorus, the Doctor asks, of conservative pundits praising Mr. Rove for being a whistleblower? Outside of the Wall Street Journal and a few dozen conservative blogs who linked to the article, there are precious few “pundits” saying that Rove is a hero. There are, in fact, many saying that Mr. Rove should go and almost a universal condemnation of the act of “outing” Wilson’s wife. (Note: Wilson himself in an interview yesterday said his wife was not a covert agent at the time her name was mentioned in the press).

“As for Mr. Krugman’s final question “How did our political system get to this point?” Perhaps we should be asking Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Raymond Donovan, and the dozen or so conservatives who were mercilessly smeared, tarred and feathered by Democratic Party campaigns in the 1980’s and 90’s before Mr. Rove was anywhere near the White House,” Doctor Sixpak said.

Doctor Sixpak said that Krugman needs a long rest, as far away from writing about politics as possible, in order to achieve a full recovery. “It’s apparent that excess bile production in Mr. Krugman’s liver will continue as long as he writes,” Dr. Dixpak said.

Here’s hoping Krugman takes the Doctor’s advice and perhaps join his colleague Frank Rich in writing restaurant reviews rather than political columns.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin has a great round-up of links highlighting the latest in this so-far unamed scandal. On that note, the liberals are going to have to hurry. The way this thing is shaking out, the whole thing may blow over in another week or so.

Lorie Byrd has another superb round-up with some interesting thoughts:

If the source in this story is correct, Karl Rove has been done a great injustice. He has been smeared beyond belief. The “journalists” that have been pummelling Scott McClellan might have been better off directing their questions to some of their colleagues. I want to know who all these journalists were that cared so little for national security that they were throwing around the name of Valerie Plame.

Maybe Chuck Schumer should not be worried about Karl Rove’s security clearance, but instead should be working to revoke the press passes of these journalists who were endangering national security. While he is at it, they should also be denounced for trying to ruin Plame’s life and career, as they obviously had the express motive of getting retribution against Joe Wilson. What other motive could there be? Democrats and those in the media (Chris Matthews for one) have told us that was the obvious motive for speaking Plame’s name. (While I am on the subject of security clearances, did it not seem the least bit brazen and hypocritical to anyone else that Schumer and others were calling for Rove’s, rather than Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy’s?)

Indeed.

Bill Ardolino:

This critique from a man whose catalogue of contorted economic posits in service of partisan political goals resembles an unexpurgated copy of the Kama Sutra.

I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard economics “resembling” anything sex related. Or maybe economists have some kind of secret life we know nothing about?

In an update to an otherwise excellent post on the scandal, Joe Gandleman jumps the shark by agreeing with much of Krugman’s ridiculous rant:

MOST TROUBLING: Now that we indeed ARE at “this point,” how possible or unlikely is it that we can now UNGET to “this point”? Can we break out of this troubling era where people will change their political standards and values as they articulated them when it came to the opposition to allow their side leeway to do whatever they need to do to gain and stay in power?

And if there are no absolutes (just rip and read the talking points sent out by the RNC on the old talk show or incorporate them into your commentary to defend your side), what does it portend for the future?

Joe is making the same mistake Krugman makes; overgeneralization.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Gandleman that those “talking points” were themselves gleaned from commentary on the scandale from a wide variety of sources? I SAW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE TALKING POINTS DISCUSSED SOMEWHERE ON THE INTERNET BEFORE KEN MEHLMAN EVEN SAT DOWN TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE.

To say that there’s a unanimity of thought about how to defend Rove denies the obvious point: THE REASON THEY’RE USED EXTENSIVELY BY THE RIGHT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD POINTS AND MAKE SENSE. To say that we on the right are a bunch of automatons following some script laid out by the White House or the RNC makes Mr. Gandleman as loony as Krugman and the moonbats who are saying that Rove committed treason or that this cotton candy scandal is somehow comparable to Watergate.

I would strongly urge anyone on the left to lay back on this for a few more days. If not, and it’s shown in a couple of days or weeks that Rove was never the target of this investigation, you are going to look like bigger fools than you already are.