Amnesia Is Contagious At The New York Times

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on March 27, 2010

[tweetmeme]

Bob Herbert:

. . . We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.

It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.

Paul Krugman:

For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.

You know, it’s a really good thing that back when George W. Bush was President, his political adversaries didn’t go off the deep end in opposing him.

Oh, wait. They did. Plenty of times.

And guess what? Opposition to Republicans has spilled over into expressions of violence even today. Just out of curiosity, should we hold President Obama’s political team responsible for some of this behavior?

Or Paul Krugman himself?

It is clear that both Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman need better editors. It is also clear that the New York Times needs better, more rigorous, and more honest columnists.

  • http://twitter.com/FiveFs Jeff Sites

    Krugman says today's GOP is not Reagan's GOP because Reagan “could and did strike deals with Democrats.” So, when the GOP was in control of the Executive branch, it was incumbent upon the President to reach out to the opposition and find common ground. When the Democrats are in charge, however, it's the minority party's responsibility to find agreement. One is the definition of bipartisanship, the other the definition of capitulation. Does Krugman honestly not see the difference, or does he just think that's the natural order of things?

  • http://twitter.com/FiveFs Jeff Sites

    Krugman says today's GOP is not Reagan's GOP because Reagan “could and did strike deals with Democrats.” So, when the GOP was in control of the Executive branch, it was incumbent upon the President to reach out to the opposition and find common ground. When the Democrats are in charge, however, it's the minority party's responsibility to find agreement. One is the definition of bipartisanship, the other the definition of capitulation. Does Krugman honestly not see the difference, or does he just think that's the natural order of things?

Previous post:

Next post: