NYT: Geithner And Summers "Have Played Central Roles" In Provoking Crisis

[LittleApple81]

(via Huffington Post)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/opinion/25tue1.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Editorial
Mr. Obama’s Economic Advisers

....
Both men, however, have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today’s financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, currently the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, also has helped shape the Bush administration’s erratic and often inscrutable responses to the current financial meltdown, up to and including this past weekend’s multibillion-dollar bailout of Citigroup.

Given that history, the question that most needs answering is not whether Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers are men of talent — obviously they are — but whether they have learned from their mistakes, and if so, what.

We are not asking for moral mea culpas. But unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess.
....

[amborin]

1. Summers: let's dump our toxic pollution on them:

"In 1994, by the way, virtually every other country in the world broke with Mr. Summers' Harvard-trained "economic logic" ruminations about dumping rich countries' poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries."

<http://www.counterpunch.org/summers.html>

[yardwork]

33. Summers is a complete idiot and I'm disappointed that he was chosen.

That's one appointment I would never have made.

[w4rma]

2. Obama has not done well with his cabinet picks. (nt)

[Occam Bandage]

4. I disagree. nt

[blm]

7. It started out so promising....then he had his meeting with Bush.

I never thought for a second he was a committed progressive in the Kerry mold, but, I certainly expected a chamge from the Bush-Clinton-Bush roster of characters.

There are a LOT of progressives who are qualified and who have been right in their areas of expertise - they are being bypassed for retreads experienced at participating in many of the WRONG policies over the last 3 decades.

[GarbagemanLB]

12. So Kerry, the guy who supported the IWR, is more of a progressive than Obama. Gotcha.

[blm]

29. IWR is NOT the determining factor in who is or isn't a commited progressive. And further

if you are concerned about accuracy - Kerry voted for IWR but also stood WITH the weapon inspectors who were proving force was not needed. he did that BEFORe the invasion, during the invasion and after the invasion while those giving the weapon inspections LIP SERVICE (HRC) remained sided with Bush's decision to use force, even when Kerry was our nominee.

And there isn't a lawmaker in DC who has done more to uncover and block the fascist path this nation has been on for over three decades than John Kerry. That you think he is not a progressive because of a vote for a resolution of force is ridiculous.

You think Obama isn't progressive because he didn't vote for the Iraq withdrawal plan? I don't - because that would be a silly measure one would have for whether or not someone would lead as a progressive.

[Shiver]

14. Can they be confirmed by the Senate, though?

Will they be able to hit the ground running on Jan. 20th, or will they need time to figure out the workings of their department? Do they even WANT positions?

There is more to consider than just ideology.

[blm]

32. There were some with experience in the cabinet and under cabinet who exited as Clinton turned right.

Robert Reich would be an obvious one.

And HRC isn't even QUALIFIED to be SoS based on her record. She's qualified to be the MEDIA'S version of a qualified person - someone who can get lots of press and fanfare but has done little positive to earn it.

Like someone being heralded as the world's greatest marathoner, yet no one has ever even witnessed ONE race that was run and won by this so-called great marathoner.

[Shiver]

34. That didn't quite answer my questions

Personally, I'm waiting to see how it all plays out. I'm not in love his picks, but I far from hate them.

[blm]

35. Reich couldn't get confirmed? I believe he'd be able to with no problem.

There are experienced people who have been right more often than those who have the experience of being WRONG.

[Shiver]

36. You probably are right on that

Like I said, I'm waiting. The entire Cabinet hasn't even been decided yet, and the non-Cabinet advisers are closer to the President than anyone - and many of them are progressives, who have also been getting things right.

Thank you for answering, by the way. Many I've posed these questions to have not replied.

[high density]

22. What??

Obama is learning from the mistakes of the Carter and Clinton admins. If Obama wants Democrats with some experience in a Democratic White House (and obviously he does), then Clinton-era people are the only option. That is just how it is. Going from Bushco lackeys to Clinton "retreads" seems like a positive step.

[blm]

30. Why choose those who have been so wrong while ignoring the qualified who were so right?

You think we ended up with Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war because Bill Clinton had great policies? The foundation of Clinton's foreign policy were no different than Bush1 and he continued many of them seamlessly while allowing cover for Poppy Bush and his powerful cronies to continue their own global agenda UNDISTURBED and unscrutinized.

[girl gone mad]

38. I agree.

People seem to be happy simply because they are qualified.

Is that the legacy Bush has left us with? Now the new high water mark for political appointments is that they are qualified for the position? We don't dare hope for actual brilliance or accomplishment, just rote competence is celebrated.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Unfortunately, just about everyone in any level of government or Wall Street

over the last ten years could be said to have "played a major role" in this crisis.

[amborin]

5. not mary bain and the other woman...why not bain for SOT?

[ellacott]

8. Do you know if she was even interested in the position?

[Metta]

6. Here, freaking, here. Are B's picks the voice of the corporate masters?

Hard to see otherwise, given their backgrounds. Summers, especially.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Where was the NYT objecting when Bush was crafting his

Economic package?

Does well that the NYT reaches back to blame today's financial woes on the Clinton administration, cause that is what they are doing.

Maybe the NYT should have been advocating for Bush's impeachment long ago. I googled and couldn't find anything to that effect written by the New York times.

I did find this editorial by the NYT on going to war in Iraq back in 2002:

A Time for Candor on Iraq
Published: August 3, 2002
America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons. That is what the cease-fire resolution ending the Persian Gulf war called for, and it has still not been achieved. To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago. Now the U.N. is again demanding that Iraq agree to unimpeded inspections. Baghdad's reply so far has been ambiguous. Removing Mr. Hussein from power may be the only way to assure that Iraq fully disarms, but every available diplomatic option should be exhausted first.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801EEDA163AF930A3575BC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


New York Times Rewrites Iraq War History
To Bush—and Times—WMDs were not just a 'possibility'
Action Alert from FAIR-

The New York Times' editorial page unskeptically accepted these claims and incorporated them into the paper's own arguments. In a September 18, 2002 editorial, the paper declared:

What really counts in this conflict...is the destruction of Iraq's unconventional weapons and the dismantling of its program to develop nuclear arms.... What makes Iraq the subject of intense concern, as Mr. Bush noted, is Mr. Hussein's defiance of the Security Council's longstanding instructions to dismantle Baghdad's nuclear weapons program and to eliminate all its biological and chemical weapons and the materials used to make them.
snip

After the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on inspectors returning to Iraq, the Times editorialized (11/9/02):

The unwavering goal is to disarm Iraq, enforcing a string of previous Security Council resolutions that Baghdad has contemptuously ignored. The cost of letting that happen has been diminished authority for the United Nations and a growing danger that Iraq's unconventional weapons will be used in war or passed on to terrorists. Mr. Bush has galvanized the Security Council to declare that its orders must now be obeyed and those dangers eliminated.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2957



I did find this on Bush's pick of Sec. of Treasurer back at the time that Paulson was confirmed.

A Letter to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.
I applaud you for using your debut speech to acknowledge that “many Americans simply aren’t feeling the benefits” of economic growth. Though it was a statement of the obvious, it displayed a candor lacking in your predecessor, John Snow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/opinion/05sat3.html

[LittleApple81]

11. I laugh when the rightwingers say the NYT is liberal. We owe the Iraq war to Judy Miller and her

horrible compact with Chalabi and Cheney. So I agree with you. I just thought it was interesting that now they feel free to be critical of the incoming government.

[amborin]

18. Wrong! The NYT took a very critical stance toward Bush's appointments: here's a small sample:

THE 43RD PRESIDENT: THE TRANSITION;
NEW PICKS FIRM UP CONSERVATIVE CAST OF BUSH'S CABINET

BYLINE: By DAVID E. SANGER

SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 6; National Desk

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 29
**********************************

The New York Times

December 30, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

THE 43RD PRESIDENT;
Interior Choice Sends a Signal On Land Policy

BYLINE: By DOUGLAS JEHL

As a young lawyer in President Ronald Reagan's Interior Department, Gale Norton was part of an unsuccessful effort to persuade Congressional Democrats to open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Now Ms. Norton is poised to plunge back into that bitter fight, this time as interior secretary under another Republican president who has accused Democrats of doing too much to lock up natural resources in the name of conservation.


With President-elect George W. Bush vowing to allow oil companies access to the wildlife refuge, and most Democrats aligned strongly against the plan, the battle over new oil drilling in Alaska is shaping up as a defining controversy for the early months of the Bush administration. And in naming Ms. Norton, 46, as his steward of the nation's public lands, Mr. Bush has sent a strong signal that what he has in mind -- and not only in Alaska -- would indeed mark a sharp shift in course.

Except for the choice of John Ashcroft as attorney general, no Bush cabinet selection so far may create more opposition than this one. It was unclear how actively environmental groups might fight to block Ms. Norton's nomination, but the Sierra Club, in particular, commands a broad membership and has shown a willingness to spend large amounts of money in such political battles.

A former protege of James Watt, Mr. Reagan's first interior secretary, Ms. Norton has long been an outspoken advocate of granting states, localities and even private corporations a greater voice in environmental decisions that under Democratic leadership have been mostly the preserve of the federal government.

"She believes very much that less regulation is better, and that the best control is at the lowest level of government possible," said Matti Allbright, who served as Colorado's deputy attorney general under Ms. Norton. "I don't think she's going to push around those who are trying to come up with their own solutions."

<snip>
***********************************

The New York Times

December 26, 2000, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

Bumps Ahead for Bush's Justice Dept. Pick

BYLINE: By ERIC SCHMITT


Democratic senators and liberal interest groups warned today that Senator John Ashcroft, President-elect George W. Bush's choice for attorney general, faces a fierce nomination fight over his positions on issues like civil rights and abortion rights.

No senator has yet publicly opposed Mr. Ashcroft's selection to be the nation's chief legal officer, and liberal groups concede that they face an uphill battle in persuading the Senate to reject one of its soon-to-be-former members from joining Mr. Bush's cabinet.


Nonetheless, many of the same members of the liberal coalition that defeated the Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork in 1987 are scrambling to mount an aggressive campaign against Mr. Ashcroft. At stake, opponents argue, are everyday considerations from privacy rights and constitutional freedoms, to whether Mr. Ashcroft's anti-abortion position will interfere with his ability to enforce federal laws protecting abortion rights.

Beyond the immediate issue of Mr. Ashcroft's ability to serve as attorney general, some Democrats said, a fight at his confirmation hearings will help mobilize for future battles core party supporters still energized by the Florida recount battles.

The focus, though, will be Mr. Ashcroft's performance as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as United States senator since 1995.

"We're going to take a very careful look at his record, and if it's as bad as I fear it is, we'll strongly oppose him," said Judith L. Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, a liberal advocacy group.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which oversees confirmation of the attorney general, said on Sunday that Mr. Ashcroft's nomination was not at all assured in a Senate that will be split 50-50.

"I intend that it will be a fair hearing," Mr. Leahy said on ABC's "This Week." He added: "That does not mean it will be a pushover hearing. There will be tough questions."
**************************



The New York Times

December 23, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

Mr. Bush's Rightward Lurch


The right-wingers who were beginning to feel like wallflowers at George W. Bush's cabinet dance can stop complaining. Mr. Bush, who made his earlier selections from his party's ideological center, threw a big bouquet to the ultraconservatives yesterday when he chose John Ashcroft, the recently deposed Republican senator from Missouri, for the post of attorney general.

The nomination later in the day of Christie Whitman, the moderate Republican governor of New Jersey, to run the Environmental Protection Agency tilted the overall composition of Mr. Bush's early choices back toward the center. But that could not mute the widespread dismay over Mr. Bush's troubling choice of Mr. Ashcroft.


Mr. Bush is clearly hoping that Mr. Ashcroft's old colleagues will extend him the usual senatorial courtesies and confirm him with little dissent. But Mr. Ashcroft's hard-line ideology and extreme views and actions on issues like abortion and civil rights require a searching examination at his confirmation hearing. He should not be given an automatic pass. The Senate is duty-bound to determine whether he will be able to surmount his cramped social agenda to act as the guardian of the nation's constitutional values.


The attorney general has great discretion in deciding how much energy to devote to protecting civil rights, broadening civil liberties, keeping society free of crime, enforcing the antitrust laws and making sure that the president and his cabinet members are held to the same high standards -- an area in which the job's present occupant, Janet Reno, has been deficient. More than any other cabinet officer, the attorney general sets the moral tone of an administration.
The position should clearly be filled with someone with a reputation for balance, fairness and independence. Mr. Ashcroft is by all accounts honest and hard-working. Yet he is also, judging by the public record, a man of cramped vision, unyielding attitudes and limited tolerance for those who disagree with him. His actions on racial matters alone are enough to give one pause. As Missouri's attorney general, he opposed even a voluntary school desegregation plan in metropolitan St. Louis. He also conducted a mean-spirited and dishonest campaign against Ronnie White, Missouri's first black State Supreme Court justice, when Justice White was nominated for a federal judgeship. Mr. Ashcroft claimed, erroneously, that Justice White was soft on the death penalty. As an added insult, Mr. Ashcroft also accepted an honorary degree last year from Bob Jones University, a bastion of the Christian right with a history of racial discrimination.

Mr. Ashcroft has been one of the Senate's most adamant opponents of a woman's right to choose an abortion. During his political career in Missouri, he sought to criminalize abortion, and he has consistently supported an extreme constitutional amendment that would ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Mr. Ashcroft has a poor record on church-state issues and on gay rights, and a dismal record on the environment. There is thus reason to wonder how vigorously he will help Mrs. Whitman enforce environmental laws.

With Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Bush has offered a far more appealing nominee for high office. His pledge to elevate the E.P.A. post to cabinet level is also commendable. The E.P.A. is no less important than the Interior Department in providing responsible stewardship of the nation's natural resources.
On the plus side, Mrs. Whitman seems genuine in caring about the environment, and as a Northeasterner, she is intimately familiar with the problems of polluted air and water. She joined with Gov. George Pataki of New York in lawsuits aimed at curbing the pollution that drifts eastward from Midwestern power plants, and she has worked to protect the New Jersey coastline by investing in sewage treatment and storm drainage projects. Although land conservation is mainly Interior's responsibility, Mrs. Whitman demonstrated a real appreciation for the importance of saving natural resources for future generations when she sponsored a $1 billion open space program, the largest in New Jersey's history.

On the minus side, she slashed the budget for environmental law enforcement and stopped levying meaningful fines against big polluters. That pro-business mind-set will be disastrous if continued in her new job, as will her oft-repeated but naive faith in "voluntary" compliance with environmental laws. As Mrs. Whitman will discover, there will be times when negotiating skills simply don't suffice. She must be willing to enforce the law in the face of relentless pressure, not only from the big interest groups but from her superiors in the White House.

[amborin]

20. The NYT DID object STRONGLY to Bush's Picks: here's some examples:

THE 43RD PRESIDENT: THE TRANSITION;
NEW PICKS FIRM UP CONSERVATIVE CAST OF BUSH'S CABINET

BYLINE: By DAVID E. SANGER

SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 6; National Desk

LENGTH: 1449 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 29

The New York Times

December 30, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

THE 43RD PRESIDENT;
Interior Choice Sends a Signal On Land Policy

BYLINE: By DOUGLAS JEHL

SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk

LENGTH: 1447 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 29



As a young lawyer in President Ronald Reagan's Interior Department, Gale Norton was part of an unsuccessful effort to persuade Congressional Democrats to open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
Now Ms. Norton is poised to plunge back into that bitter fight, this time as interior secretary under another Republican president who has accused Democrats of doing too much to lock up natural resources in the name of conservation.


With President-elect George W. Bush vowing to allow oil companies access to the wildlife refuge, and most Democrats aligned strongly against the plan, the battle over new oil drilling in Alaska is shaping up as a defining controversy for the early months of the Bush administration. And in naming Ms. Norton, 46, as his steward of the nation's public lands, Mr. Bush has sent a strong signal that what he has in mind -- and not only in Alaska -- would indeed mark a sharp shift in course.
Except for the choice of John Ashcroft as attorney general, no Bush cabinet selection so far may create more opposition than this one. It was unclear how actively environmental groups might fight to block Ms. Norton's nomination, but the Sierra Club, in particular, commands a broad membership and has shown a willingness to spend large amounts of money in such political battles.
A former protege of James Watt, Mr. Reagan's first interior secretary, Ms. Norton has long been an outspoken advocate of granting states, localities and even private corporations a greater voice in environmental decisions that under Democratic leadership have been mostly the preserve of the federal government.
"She believes very much that less regulation is better, and that the best control is at the lowest level of government possible," said Matti Allbright, who served as Colorado's deputy attorney general under Ms. Norton. "I don't think she's going to push around those who are trying to come up with their own solutions."

The New York Times

December 26, 2000, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

Bumps Ahead for Bush's Justice Dept. Pick

BYLINE: By ERIC SCHMITT

SECTION: Section A; Page 26; Column 4; National Desk

LENGTH: 972 words

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 25



Democratic senators and liberal interest groups warned today that Senator John Ashcroft, President-elect George W. Bush's choice for attorney general, faces a fierce nomination fight over his positions on issues like civil rights and abortion rights.
No senator has yet publicly opposed Mr. Ashcroft's selection to be the nation's chief legal officer, and liberal groups concede that they face an uphill battle in persuading the Senate to reject one of its soon-to-be-former members from joining Mr. Bush's cabinet.


Nonetheless, many of the same members of the liberal coalition that defeated the Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork in 1987 are scrambling to mount an aggressive campaign against Mr. Ashcroft. At stake, opponents argue, are everyday considerations from privacy rights and constitutional freedoms, to whether Mr. Ashcroft's anti-abortion position will interfere with his ability to enforce federal laws protecting abortion rights.
Beyond the immediate issue of Mr. Ashcroft's ability to serve as attorney general, some Democrats said, a fight at his confirmation hearings will help mobilize for future battles core party supporters still energized by the Florida recount battles.
The focus, though, will be Mr. Ashcroft's performance as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as United States senator since 1995.
"We're going to take a very careful look at his record, and if it's as bad as I fear it is, we'll strongly oppose him," said Judith L. Lichtman, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, a liberal advocacy group.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which oversees confirmation of the attorney general, said on Sunday that Mr. Ashcroft's nomination was not at all assured in a Senate that will be split 50-50.
"I intend that it will be a fair hearing," Mr. Leahy said on ABC's "This Week." He added: "That does not mean it will be a pushover hearing. There will be tough questions."


The New York Times

December 23, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

Mr. Bush's Rightward Lurch

SECTION: Section A; Page 18; Column 1; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 788 words



The right-wingers who were beginning to feel like wallflowers at George W. Bush's cabinet dance can stop complaining. Mr. Bush, who made his earlier selections from his party's ideological center, threw a big bouquet to the ultraconservatives yesterday when he chose John Ashcroft, the recently deposed Republican senator from Missouri, for the post of attorney general. The nomination later in the day of Christie Whitman, the moderate Republican governor of New Jersey, to run the Environmental Protection Agency tilted the overall composition of Mr. Bush's early choices back toward the center. But that could not mute the widespread dismay over Mr. Bush's troubling choice of Mr. Ashcroft.

Mr. Bush is clearly hoping that Mr. Ashcroft's old colleagues will extend him the usual senatorial courtesies and confirm him with little dissent. But Mr. Ashcroft's hard-line ideology and extreme views and actions on issues like abortion and civil rights require a searching examination at his confirmation hearing. He should not be given an automatic pass. The Senate is duty-bound to determine whether he will be able to surmount his cramped social agenda to act as the guardian of the nation's constitutional values.


The attorney general has great discretion in deciding how much energy to devote to protecting civil rights, broadening civil liberties, keeping society free of crime, enforcing the antitrust laws and making sure that the president and his cabinet members are held to the same high standards -- an area in which the job's present occupant, Janet Reno, has been deficient. More than any other cabinet officer, the attorney general sets the moral tone of an administration.
The position should clearly be filled with someone with a reputation for balance, fairness and independence.

Mr. Ashcroft is by all accounts honest and hard-working. Yet he is also, judging by the public record, a man of cramped vision, unyielding attitudes and limited tolerance for those who disagree with him. His actions on racial matters alone are enough to give one pause. As Missouri's attorney general, he opposed even a voluntary school desegregation plan in metropolitan St. Louis. He also conducted a mean-spirited and dishonest campaign against Ronnie White, Missouri's first black State Supreme Court justice, when Justice White was nominated for a federal judgeship.

Mr. Ashcroft claimed, erroneously, that Justice White was soft on the death penalty. As an added insult, Mr. Ashcroft also accepted an honorary degree last year from Bob Jones University, a bastion of the Christian right with a history of racial discrimination.

Mr. Ashcroft has been one of the Senate's most adamant opponents of a woman's right to choose an abortion. During his political career in Missouri, he sought to criminalize abortion, and he has consistently supported an extreme constitutional amendment that would ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Mr. Ashcroft has a poor record on church-state issues and on gay rights, and a dismal record on the environment. There is thus reason to wonder how vigorously he will help Mrs. Whitman enforce environmental laws.
With Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Bush has offered a far more appealing nominee for high office. His pledge to elevate the E.P.A. post to cabinet level is also commendable. The E.P.A. is no less important than the Interior Department in providing responsible stewardship of the nation's natural resources.
On the plus side, Mrs. Whitman seems genuine in caring about the environment, and as a Northeasterner, she is intimately familiar with the problems of polluted air and water. She joined with Gov. George Pataki of New York in lawsuits aimed at curbing the pollution that drifts eastward from Midwestern power plants, and she has worked to protect the New Jersey coastline by investing in sewage treatment and storm drainage projects. Although land conservation is mainly Interior's responsibility, Mrs. Whitman demonstrated a real appreciation for the importance of saving natural resources for future generations when she sponsored a $1 billion open space program, the largest in New Jersey's history.

On the minus side, she slashed the budget for environmental law enforcement and stopped levying meaningful fines against big polluters. That pro-business mind-set will be disastrous if continued in her new job, as will her oft-repeated but naive faith in "voluntary" compliance with environmental laws. As Mrs. Whitman will discover, there will be times when negotiating skills simply don't suffice. She must be willing to enforce the law in the face of relentless pressure, not only from the big interest groups but from her superiors in the White House.

[amborin]

10. more bad news on Geithner: from The Nation:

"On Wall Street, Geithner is known as a highly competent technocrat, well versed in the financial complexities. But he has also been seen as a weak and compliant regulator of Wall Street firms, someone who did not seem the storm coming.

Occasionally, Geithner would anguish publicly about the accumulating time bombs like credit derivatives and urge bankers to do something, but he did not use his supervisory powers to compel action. In bailout negotiations with Wall Street titans, Geithner and the Federal Reserve were spun around like a top more than once.

No wonder the stock markets rallied explosively when they heard Geithner would be their new boss in Washington. They think he is their guy. Summers may be a brilliant economist--everyone says so--but he, too, is a club member in good standing and now manages a huge hedge fund while he advises Obama.

The president-elect needs to get a "second opinion"--someone from outside the financial club who can explain the flaws in the rescue strategy preached by Bush's treasury secretary Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner at the New York Fed. "

<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/greider_web>

[ProSense]

13. "Both served in the Clinton Treasury Department"

Both served in the Clinton Treasury Department — Mr. Summers as secretary and deputy secretary and Mr. Geithner as a top aide — where they won high marks for helping manage the fallout of that era’s crises, including the Mexican peso devaluation, the Asian financial meltdown, the Russian bond default and the collapse of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management.

<...>

We are not asking for moral mea culpas. But unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess.

As treasury secretary in 2000, Mr. Summers championed the law that deregulated derivatives, the financial instruments — a k a toxic assets — that have spread the financial losses from reckless lending around the globe. He refused to heed the critics who warned of dangers to come.

That law, still on the books, reinforced the false belief that markets would self-regulate. And it gave the Bush administration cover to ignore the ever-spiraling risks posed by derivatives and inadequate supervision.

<...>

Congress must play a more active role in crafting, analyzing and continuously monitoring all bailout efforts — current and those to come. Unlike President Bush, who ceded far too much power to his treasury secretary, Mr. Obama must challenge and question his advisers’ recommendations and decisions. He has chosen tough advisers. He must be even tougher than they are.

(emphasis added)

Interesting that the NYT praises their efforts under Clinton, who championed dergulation.

[FrenchieCat]

15. The New York (years behind) times

The can pitch a fit, and when the economy is totally down the tank and no one is buying their paper, I wonder what they will have to say then about pre-emptive calls for apologies?

[EFerrari]

16. They'll have to stand in line behind The Nation and behind the panel

on Amy's show today who all said pretty much the same thing.

[amborin]

19. why bash the NYT? it's been a consistent critic of Bush

it's the world's leading newspaper

[lessthanjake1234]

17. You arent going to find someone suitable who didnt have a hand in this crisis

Obama needs someone who is REALLY well versed in the current economic situation. Geithner fits that role. Only a handful of other people fit that to the same extent because Geithner has been one of the primary people trying to save failing financial institutions. Very few other people will be as well versed as him, and the ones that would be would also have ties to the current crisis.

[high density]

21. Ah, so the NYT tells us that the crisis is not Bush's fault...

...but rather the fault of two people nobody has heard about for years until last week.

[w4rma]

23. Nonetheless, Obama needs to replace these two. (nt)

[high density]

25. He's just appointed them, so that's not going to happen

We can be sure that Obama's vetting team is more informed than the NY Times editorial board.

[amborin]

24. the NYT has NEVER said that; on the contrary

[PassingFair]

26. How dare the New York Times print such "shrill" and "hysterical" opinions.

:sarcasm:

[Jennicut]

27. No one is happy with every pick. I like Geithner, dislike Summers

But both are there for Obama and are directed by what the man wants...sheesh. You would think we have a govt. running around with their heads cut off with no real leader...wait we do under Bush. But Obama is already showing clear leadership and he is not even President yet.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Here's one way to look at it FWIW

Assuming they have a sincere desire to fix this mess and have learned what went wrong (insight), why shouldn't they be helping to clean up their mess? :shrug:

[Zynx]

31. This is a pretty shitty piece. Geithner has helped prevent the whole thing from collapsing.

Most of the actions taken by the New York Fed have prevented total disaster.

[brentspeak]

37. It makes no sense why Obama is picking them

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. NYT played a central role in Whitewater and Iraq

So fuck them. And fuck their opinions.