Frank Rich: Has Obama's Katrina Moment Arrived ?

[Me.]

“A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.

Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster.

Otherwise it never would have used Lawrence Summers, the chief economic adviser, as a messenger just as the A.I.G. rage was reaching a full boil last weekend. Summers is so tone-deaf that he makes Geithner seem like Bobby Kennedy.

Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Summers the simple question that has haunted the American public since the bailouts began last fall: “Do you know, Dr. Summers, what the banks have done with all of this money that has been funneled to them through these bailouts?” What followed was a monologue of evasion that, translated into English, amounted to: Not really, but you little folk needn’t worry about it.” Cont…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=1

[burythehatchet]

1. Frank Rich is stupid if he is critical of the administration's decisions.

You better think twice, Buster. I can rat you out if I want to.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

37. What I want to know is: who the f*ck is "Frank Rich" and why should I care?

I don't know him. He hasn't impacted my life in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM. He is NOTHING to me (or, if he is a she, SHE is NOTHING to me).

Is this person another VERY WELL PAID OPINIONATOR that not one American citizen needs?

I don't know. I don't care. I am just sick and effin' tired of all the self-proclaimed chiefs taking up airspace.

[camera obscura]

40. If you've never heard of Rich, that's your problem, not his.

[Bluebear]

55. You think Americans don't need editorialists? That things should just go uncommented upon?

[QC]

65. You don't read much, do you? n/t

[NavyDavy]

2. whatever

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

3. oh please. nt

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

9. ok, i admit i didnt read it all. lol

[BlooInBloo]

4. hahahah! DRAMARAMA!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[leftchick]

5. Hah! Thank you Frank!

I get derided here daily for posting facts. Facts that I and millions of others are suffering because Obama chooses The Chicago boy way over helping us. Don't ya love when he says "I hear you!"? Big Fucking Deal! Do Something dammit!

:banghead:

[KittyWampus]

14. maybe you'd have some credibility if you didn't use schoolyard name-calling like "The Chicago Boy"

bla bla bla.

It's as asinine as saying "DLC" regardless whether a pol is actually a member.

I have totally lost faith in Obama's economic team but really don't want to be associated with anyone posting stupid crap like that.

[girl gone mad]

43. The Chicago Boys refers to a group of economists..

trained at the University of Chicago in the 70s. Their brand of laissez-faire economics has proven to be a catastrophic failure, as our current crisis demonstrates.

Unfortunately, Obama appears not to have gotten the memo, since he and his advisers are still citing these now discredited Chicago School ideologies as the basis for a number of his economic policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

[malaise]

21. Bottom line

Obama will have to hold the funeral service for neo-liberal economics or he will be dragged into the incinerator and burn with it.

The Chicago School model is dead - move on - the majority of the population are with Obama and he'd better use his political capital or let the criminals on Wall Street, the media and the Bush gang devour him.

There are only two options.

[leftchick]

60. well said malaise

There are indeed only two options and time has run out.

[mdmc]

66. well met my friend

:toast:

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Frank Rich Is The Greatest Editorialist Of Our Time

As always, his column is dead-nuts on target, and incredibly lucid.

I've been an Obama supporter from the start - but this Paulson/Summers/Geithner plan is an utter catastrophe. It's like giving a gin IV to a drunk who's moments from death from cirrhosis of the liver. Absolutely insane.

[burythehatchet]

8. Please, come with me. Empty your pockets. Follow the others. 3rd door on the right.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I Don't Get The Reference

Pray, elucidate.

[burythehatchet]

18. explanation

in your mailbox

[Me.]

11. I Have Been Perplexed By The Choice Of Those Two Men

Despite claims that they are the only ones who know the way out. I stand by the president and his term of 60+ days. No wonder his hair is beginning to turn gray.

[QC]

7. PUMA!1!!!! PUMA!1!!!!!11

[PM Martin]

10. Rich was an early backer of Obama.

He openly showed his contempt for HRC.

[aquart]

50. Yep.

[JackBeck]

12. How about correctly quoting the title of the article?

And attributing the quote of your OP to the proper source.

[BlooInBloo]

16. Pfft. Just plain lying is SOOOOO much better.

:rofl:

[JackBeck]

19. It's easier to take liberties with the facts in order to attract attention.

Attributing an inflammatory quote with a columnist that is liberal leaning in order to score points is disingenuous, to say the least.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Of course it is.

[Me.]

22. Get A Grip

Op-Ed Columnist
Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?

Mea Culpa for a missing ? mark.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Wow. That's just sad.

[Me.]

24. Yawn

[JackBeck]

26. Frank Rich did not say what you claim in your OP's title.

Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif. said what you claim Rich said.

There's a world of difference between:

Rich: "Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?"

and

Altmaier: "President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived."

Which is why you should change the title of your OP.

It's lazy and inflammatory to claim Frank Rich said something that he didn't say.

[scarletwoman]

28. Way to avoid actually addressing the content -- nitpick about the subject line.

You make it too fucking easy.

[JackBeck]

29. "Too fucking easy" for what?

I stood by Rich when he was forced to write reviews for the Arts & Leisure section and applauded the way he still was able to inject liberalism into his content, which is why I'm offended that the OP insulted Rich by misquoting him.

I remember the day when liberals and progressives appreciated nuance. Looks like you got left behind during the Bush years.

[scarletwoman]

30. Too fucking easy to see your obvious avoidance of addressing the content of the piece.

Which you are still doing, I might add.

[JackBeck]

36. There are other threads in other forums that address the topic honestly.

Were you here from the beginning to see how this thread was titled, or are you late to this thread?

What's wrong with trying to encourage honesty?

[scarletwoman]

39. Gawd, you're really hung up on this. What damn difference does it make if the title isn't exact?

There's a link in the OP that takes anyone who cares to bother to the original article where they can see the exact title.

"What's wrong with trying to encourage honesty?" Okay, so you're all about the "honesty". Whoopdidoo.

Do you have anything to offer about the CONTENT of Frank Rich's piece? Or do you just want to keep harping on the subject line of the OP?

sw

[Jakes Progress]

38. Why should posters address the issues

when they can't really defend their position. Much better to stamp tiny feet and cry "foul". When asked what foul. Insult their mother. When asked what the point is, cry "foul". Repeat as needed.

[scarletwoman]

41. You'd think they'd have the decency to be embarrassed when they're called out on it.

It's really quite astounding.

[JackBeck]

44. What was the original title of this OP?

Do you remember what it said? Before the edits? The time stamps should be a clue as to why you should chill.

[scarletwoman]

48. LOL!

:rofl:

[JackBeck]

52. If you only knew

You wouldn't be so erroneously indignant.

If you had seen the original title of the OP, you'd probably even agree with what I said over two hours ago before the OP edited.

[scarletwoman]

53. OMG. You're just never going to let go of it, are you.

:eyes:

[JackBeck]

56. Do you remember what the OP was before the edit?

[Jakes Progress]

73. Why actually make a point?

Like stealth freepers they have effectively blocked any discussion. Cowardly, but effective.

[Me.]

32. Gee I Wonder Why Rich Used That Quote

Couldn't be that he was making a point to that effect, that this is a pivotal time for President Obama. Or maybe someone else put it in and he didn't know it and his column just lined up with it.

[JackBeck]

34. BTW, you're still not correctly quoting the title of the article.

[Me.]

42. Please Note The Absence Of Quotation Marks

[JackBeck]

45. :

[girl gone mad]

47. Are you kidding with this?

You seriously believe this is worth wasting your time arguing over? The subject line is entirely in keeping with the contents of the article. It was a valid editorial decision.

[JackBeck]

49. Did you see what was orignally posted?

[Marr]

15. Good article-- I'm inclined to agree with his position.

[scarletwoman]

17. k & fucking r. Obama needs to dump the neoliberals and Wall Streeters and fast.

Otherwise he has NO credibility whatsoever. I don't care how much he says he "feels our pain".

sw

[Skittles]

27. AMEN TO THAT

[earth mom]

33. Exactly. Actions speak louder than words.

Obama needs to get busy.

[Me.]

35. Well Said

The Wall Street crowd obviously don't care who they harm and they certainly aren't standing by Obama as he's trying to get us out of the mess they made. You only have to watch CNBC to see that.

[jbnow]

25. I hate his column because it's true. I was okay with the appointments

mainly because I couldn't do anything about them but also I thought Obama could use their knowledge and make his own decisions. I'm losing that hope-
and part of it is the secrecy, the info they aren't sgaring...
so are we just paying off the bad gambling habits?
or good ones...hedge funds who didn't even own the securities made bets that they would default...so they have no loss but we pay them off?

None of this is okay and I am angry too. The bonus is the least of it and is only reflective. So Geithner and Axelrod disagreed about those and Geithner won?
maybe there was some reason, we don't know because there is no frigging transparency.

But from here it looks like Geithner and Summers are living up to our worst fears as is Obama when it comes to them.

I like Obama so much...if he is losing me that is a very bad sign.
I was hoping Tuesday his prime time talk would clear things up. Some TV talking heads were saying it's going to be about immagration? I hope they were talking out of their asses. I haven't been with those who say he is doing to much, stay with the economy...but it is not time for one more new thing, not until he talks to us like grown ups about what is going on with the economy...and then let's get the budget through.

Tuesday has to be about this finance crap but Obama doesn't know he must obey me. He can't have become so tome deaf. Could he?

[KittyWampus]

63. your post echoes my sentiments. If Obama is losing me on the Economy, it's a bad sign

[kentuck]

31. Does anyone have a problem with these comments?

How much transparency should we insist on having?
===============
<snip>
"Inquiring Americans have the right to know why it took six months for us to learn (some of) what A.I.G. did with our money. We need to understand why some of that money was used to bail out foreign banks. And why Goldman, which declared that its potential losses with A.I.G. were “immaterial,” nonetheless got the largest-known A.I.G. handout of taxpayers’ cash ($12.9 billion) while also receiving a TARP bailout. We need to be told why retention bonuses went to some 50 bankers who not only were in the toxic A.I.G. unit but who left despite the “retention” jackpots. We must be told why taxpayers have so little control of the bailed-out financial institutions that we now own some or most of. And where are the M.R.I.’s from those “stress tests” the Treasury Department is giving those banks?"

[aquart]

51. All of it.

[mike_c]

46. Rich is spot on....

Obama is about to belatedly make the neocons and their Wall Street crony's best possible scenario come true-- after looting the nation, they'll paste the blame on someone else. The preferred way to make this happen would have been for the inevitable meltdown to occur during Obama's first year in office rather than Bush's last, but Obama's failure to get in front of the problem and fix it decisively is a pretty close consolation prize. The public will remember the failure plenty, the cause not so much.

[paulk]

54. Frank Rich was one of Obama's biggest supporters

during the primaries.

oh, well, under the bus he goes...

[Oilwellian]

57. Great piece

Rich makes some very valid points. I hope Obama's paying attention.

[ProSense]

58. It's a strange analogy, but

expectations are high.

[TexasObserver]

59. Except that polls consistently show Americans understand it's a long process.

This is a largely pundit driven phenomenon. Citizens are upset about the bonuses at AIG and they are talking about that. However, that doesn't mean there's a populist uprising ready to flog Obama for not fixing everything instantly. Polls and interviews consistently show that 2/3 of Americans accept that this is a process which will take more than a year to show real improvements, and they back Obama's efforts.

Katrina moment my ass!

Our major media enjoy being hyperbolicious. Ecstacy and despair are the only emotions they know.

[sendero]

62. That is a VAST simplification...

.. let me complicate it for you just a little.

Americans are BELATEDLY realizing that the Obama/Geithner/Summers plan for fixing this problem is SHOVELING TANKER TRUCKS OF CASH to the idiots and assholes that created the problem to begin with.

And they are not happy about that, nor should they be. And those who are are FOOLS.

[TexasObserver]

64. You're watching too much Joe Scarborough.

[sendero]

67. I've never watched or listened to..

.. any of those folks on purpose.

The facts are what they are no matter who's pushing what.

Obama's policies are just making things worse, they are designed to bail out bankers, not America.

[leftchick]

61. the best piece yet on obama's lack of action

here is a blueprint for the president...

<snip>

Another compelling question connects all of the above: why has there been so little transparency and so much evasiveness so far? The answer, I fear, is that too many of the administration’s officials are too marinated in the insiders’ culture to police it, reform it or own up to their own past complicity with it.

The “dirty little secret,” Obama told Leno on Thursday, is that “most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal.” An even dirtier secret is that a prime mover in keeping that stuff legal was Summers, who helped torpedo the regulation of derivatives while in the Clinton administration. His mentor Robert Rubin, no less, wrote in his 2003 memoir that Summers underestimated how the risk of derivatives might multiply “under extraordinary circumstances.”

Given that Summers worked for a secretive hedge fund, D. E. Shaw, after he was pushed out of Harvard’s presidency at the bubble’s height, you have to wonder how he can now sell the administration’s plan for buying up toxic assets with the help of hedge funds. It will look like another giveaway to his own insiders’ club. As for Geithner, people might take him more seriously if he gave a credible account of why, while at the New York Fed, he and the Goldman alumnus Hank Paulson let Lehman Brothers fail but saved the Goldman-trading ally A.I.G.

As the nation’s anger rose last week, the president took responsibility for what’s happening on his watch — more than he needed to, given the disaster he inherited. But in the credit mess, action must match words. To fall short would be to deliver us into the catastrophic hands of a Republican opposition whose only known economic program is to reject job-creating stimulus spending and root for Obama and, by extension, the country to fail. With all due deference to Ponzi schemers from Madoff to A.I.G., this would be the biggest outrage of them all.

[earth mom]

68. K & R for TRUTH!

:kick:

[goforit]

69. Rich has promoted Obama 24/7...but Obama's team is showing true arrogance.

Rich is showing Obama a mirror of himself.

Obama first mistake is taking any advice from Emmanuel.
Obama has already needlessly stumbled way too much at this point and he has no one
to guide him appropriately except maybe his wife.

[alarimer]

70. People who can't accept ANY criticism of Obama are just like the Bushies.

Not accepting any criticism of their guy. There is definitely a tone of "My President right or wrong" among some here. And it's sickening.

So they attack the messenger. The fact is the Obama, has so far been pretty ineffective in dealing with the economy, and he has had his DOJ support Bush administration positions on torture and prisoners. GITMO may be be closing but they are simply moving those people to Bagram, where they can be tortured out of the public eye.

Unless he gets off the stick and gets rid of Geithner and Summers, we are all toast and this administration will be a single-term. God knows what Republican nightmare that will get us.

[dem629]

71. Well said. Exactly right.

[JCMach1]

72. add to that the comments of Biden's Economic rep today on This Week

and NO ONE in Washinton gets it yet!