Krugman's column is titled "A Pundit Explains What’s Wrong With Washington."
It starts out like this: "Or, actually, demonstrates by example what’s wrong with Washington." (The embedded tweet below links to the rest of the piece.)
Krugman was referring to a particularly nasty and nonsensical column that Ron Fournier upchucked, leaving minds reeling and stomachs turning.
Here's a sample. Krugman's column links to the rest.
"On health care, we needed a market-driven plan that decreases the percentage of uninsured Americans without convoluting the U.S. health care system. Just such a plan sprang out of conservative think tanks and was tested by a GOP governor in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
Instead of a bipartisan agreement to bring that plan to scale, we got more partisan warfare. The GOP resisted, Obama surrendered his mantle of bipartisanship, and Democrats muscled through a one-sided law that has never been popular with a majority of the public."
|
|
|
Krugman responds:
"And what’s actually going on here is worse than ignorance. It’s pretty clear that we’re watching a rule of thumb according to which if Republicans are against a proposal, that means it must be leftist and extreme, and the burden on the White House is to find a way to make the GOP happy. Needless to say, this rewards obstructionism — there is literally nothing Obama can do to convince some (many) pundits that he’s making a good faith effort, because they don’t pay any attention to what he does, only to the Republican reaction." |
|
|
I'm glad somebody finally called it out.
A Pundit Explains What’s Wrong With Washington http://t.co/...
— Paul Krugman(@NYTimeskrugman)
November 17, 2014