As I read the article about FDR’s deficit budget, two thoughts came to mind:
1. Just how far to the left the Times has gone in 70 years. Today’s article on a far worse budget would not contain any criticism you saw 70 years ago.
2. Reading this article and thinking of 0bama’s budget, I was reminded of the definition of insanity: Trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
This is now the election year of 1940, and if I remember right, the NY Times supported NY Republican businessman Wendell Wilkie. If you wanted a modern day equivalent to Wilkie, might I suggest: Mitt Romney?
Roosevelt's national debt in 1940 was about 42% of GDP, roughly where it had been in 1934, and the Times was clearly upset about it.
Obama's national debt in 2010 is 98% of GDP, up from 65% when the Republicans were in last charge, in 2006.
So, what are the chances that the NY Times would support a moderate Republican against even the most radical of Democrats? Well, we could ask John McCain...