An Election Autopsy from Paul Krugman
As usual, one of the very few people who has managed to keep his place in the mainstream media while daring to tell the truth. I'm going to let Krugman, in today's New York Times, speak for himself:
I need only add that the behavior of the mainstream media, led in their infamy by Krugman's own New York Times, was no surprise at all to me, or to the many other left wing bloggers who have been desperately trying to raise this subject for years. Particularly since Ronald Reagan allowed the mainstream press to be virtually entirely bought up by the rich owners of the Republican party, there has been virtually no attempt by them to tell the truth. They gave the 2000 election to George W. Bush, even though any idiot could see how disastrously unqualified he was, and now they have committed a far bigger crime, selling the country out to a hostile foreign dictator, knowing perfectly well what they were doing.
Well, I'll give Krugman the last word about this:
Fat chance.
"It has long been obvious — except, apparently, to the news media — that the modern G.O.P. is a radical institution that is ready to violate democratic norms in the pursuit of power. Why should the norm of not accepting foreign assistance be any different?
...By the way, people who respond to this observation by talking about mistakes in Clinton campaign strategy are missing the point, and continuing their useful idiocy. All campaigns make mistakes. Since when do these mistakes excuse subversion of an election by a foreign power and a rogue domestic law enforcement agency?
...The bigger surprise was the behavior of the news media, and I don’t mean fake news; I mean big, prestigious organizations. Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing...Meanwhile, the news media dutifully played up the Clinton server story, which never involved any evidence of wrongdoing, but merged in the public mind into the perception of a vast “email” scandal when there was nothing there."
I need only add that the behavior of the mainstream media, led in their infamy by Krugman's own New York Times, was no surprise at all to me, or to the many other left wing bloggers who have been desperately trying to raise this subject for years. Particularly since Ronald Reagan allowed the mainstream press to be virtually entirely bought up by the rich owners of the Republican party, there has been virtually no attempt by them to tell the truth. They gave the 2000 election to George W. Bush, even though any idiot could see how disastrously unqualified he was, and now they have committed a far bigger crime, selling the country out to a hostile foreign dictator, knowing perfectly well what they were doing.
Well, I'll give Krugman the last word about this:
"...it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements."
Fat chance.
Comments
I didn't say I agreed with him, but we are where we are. We need a real liberal in the FDR mold, not another Democrat who will be the compromiser-in-chief.