It's a mutual tie:
Americablog (John) and, by his quoting them, Steve Clemons at
The Washington Note and
Arianna Huffington at her
namesake.
Now, I have truly enjoyed John's work. What he's managed to accomplish, several times, in taking on bigoted, homophobic corporations, and making them regret it, is both amazing and needed. However, since the election of President Obama, John has, in what I can only guess is an attempt to not be another voice in the Hallelujah chorus, decided to be much more critical of Obama than he ever was when he was still primary-
ing Secretary Clinton. And today, in his pimping of Mr. Clemons, he's no different.
John, and the other contributing
bloggers on his site, have been part of the
Geithner "doesn't know what he's doing," "doesn't get it," "is part of the problem," crowd. It almost seems like John gets a thrill out of highlighting these attacks (might have something to do with his republican-
esque obsession with keeping more of his cash instead of letting it pay for services necessary to live in an urban community). And in Mr. Clemons and Ms.
Huffington, he's found new compatriots.
This is what he quotes:
This is from Steve Clemons at the Washington Note:
Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to be fumbling the ball on an economic policy course that restores confidence in the American economy on both the optics level and also on a substantive front that reorganizes the "social contract" and design of the real economy in the U.S. Obama, in his 'loyalty' to his current economic team and the mistakes they are making is the antithesis of Abraham Lincoln. Obama may have tried to mimic Lincoln's "team of rivals" approach to politics -- but he needs to read the chapters on the number of generals Lincoln fired during the Civil War to finally get things moved forward.
This problem isn't going away.
I'm not exactly sure what people like John are proposing. Does anyone really think it's a good idea, when things do seem to be stabilizing, to get rid of the Treasury Secretary? It could be weeks until a new one is sworn in, and there's no acting Deputy to take over.
Here's what he quotes from
Arianna:
From Arianna:
"When you run a Fed bank," a senior Democratic operative told Chris Cillizza, "you live deep in a cave. [Geithner] just needs to get used to the sunlight."
But the issue isn't Geithner's delivery, it's what he's delivering: an approach to the crisis that is as toxic as the assets that have hamstrung the economy. Geithner, brilliant and hardworking though he is, is trapped within a Wall Street-centric view of the world and seems incapable of escaping. That's why every proposal he comes up with is déjà vu all over again -- a remixed variation on the same tried-and-failed let-the-bankers-work-it-out approach championed by his predecessor, Hank Paulson.
For Paul Krugman, this "insistence on offering the same plan over and over again, with only cosmetic changes, is itself deeply disturbing. Does Treasury not realize that all these proposals amount to the same thing? Or does it realize that, but hope that the rest of us won't notice? That is, are they stupid, or do they think we're stupid?"
...Geithner's Masters of the Universe, the people he still thinks are the ones we should turn to to save the day, are the same people who brought us here. And that is why Geithner either needs to go or keep his job but have his authority stripped and transferred to someone who does not share his Wall Street DNA. Call him or her the "Recovery Czar."
In other words, use any window dressing you want, just take the steering wheel out of Geithner's hands.
So, where is the evidence that what
Geithner is doing won't work? Some other economists said so? Can someone articulate an argument about why it won't work, without using the words of someone in the current group of economists and talking heads making a name for themselves by attacking Obama? As anyone who works in any sort of soft science will tell you, you can never prove that an approach works, or ultimately, that it will never work. And, economics might be the softest of sciences.
So, what's the point of all this? At its simplest level, it's to point out that some people are criticizing just to make noise, and others are doing so in their own personal reality where they know all and can see all.
I expect this from
Faux and conservatives. Heck, I expect it from anyone in the traditional media class who feel they always have to prove they can question a
democrat, but then always fail to ever truly question a republican. I don't expect it from the liberal
blogosphere. Criticize away when an idea or proposal goes against democratic ideals, not when you don't like the proposal because you personally don't like some detail of it, or based on your all-knowing wisdom think it could never work.
Instead of beating back the traditional media meme last week, questioning whether Obama has what it takes, whether he's an teleprompter in a suit, the liberal community was fanning the flames. We don't have to be like republicans and never question our leaders, but 60 days into one of the most complicated scenarios in history, we shouldn't be the ones asking if he knows what he's doing. We should be offering support, suggesting tweaks in policies based on sound theories not gut anger or knee-jerk ideological responses.
If we undercut him too much now, we will lose the House in 2010, and the White House in 2012. IF President Obama does something completely
anathema to core democratic principles...hold his feet to the fire, but don't do it just to make a name for yourself as the democrat who dared question Obama. You aren't the first and you won't be the last, you'll just be the gnat who wanted his 15 minutes.
Posts
