Two revealing NYT editorials

[Oldem]

the first, by Russ Douthat, makes a plain case for what we must do. Paul Krugman's tells us how: we have to put aside the heat of partisanship for a favored candidate and realize what is likely to happen if any dem candidate is elected. Together, I think they add up to more than the sum of their parts.

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/opinion/sunday/trump-2020-democrats.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage|

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/does-it-matter-who-the-democrats-choose.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article|

[pangaia]

1. Can you copy and paste some excerpts for those of us, like me,

who are blocked by a pay wall?

Thanks.

[Oldem]

2. Hope this helps, pangaia, ...

...and doesn't violate copyright law.

Douthat: "All you have to do is beat him.

Donald Trump is not a Caesar; he does not bestride our narrow world like a colossus, undefeatable save by desperate or underhanded means. He is an instinct-driven chancer who has exploited the decadence of his party and the larger system to grasp and hold a certain kind of power.

"All you have to do is beat him."

Krugman argues that it doesn't matter much who is nominated because of Congressional restraint on the more progressive ideas of people like Sanders and Warren: they would not be unable to achieve legislation for some of there most progressive ideas. Here's a sample: "So in terms of policy, here’s what I think would happen if Sanders wins: we’ll get a significant but not gigantic expansion of the social safety net, paid for by significant new taxes on the rich.

On the other hand, if Biden wins, we’ll get a significant but not gigantic expansion of the social safety net, paid for by significant new taxes on the rich."

I get as caught up as anybody by campaign rhetoric, plans, and lofty aspirations, but I think Krugman is probably right. History shows that most campaign promises succumbs to the reality of politics.

[pangaia]

3. thank you. :))))