What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.I feel slimy defending Krugman and he probably does want us censored, but he didn't say it in this piece and that's important.You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.
And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.
On the other hand, what he did say aside from bemoaning the both sides are equally at fault approach, is truly stunning and deserving of a straitjacket forged in the heart of a neutron star:
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.Now that takes your breath away.
Could be months, maybe just weeks, and he's going to drown in his toilet when he forgets which hairy end is supposed to be up!