Liberals trying to get rid of Geithner and Summers

Arianna Huffington has been trying to throw Tim Geithner and Larry Summers under the bus for several months now, and the dirty deed is almost done.  In WSJ this morning under Notable & Quotable , HuffPo is quoted:

Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House...According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing concensus: in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that [Tim] Geithner should resign-and that [Larry] Summers needs to go, too."

On March 24, 2009 on her blog she wrote:

On February 10th, the New York Times reported that there had been a "spirited" battle within the Obama administration over restrictions on executive pay and bonuses, and over attaching stringent conditions to any bailout money given to banks.

The clash pitted Tim Geithner, who opposed the restrictions and conditions, against David Axelrod, who favored them. According to the Times, Geithner had "largely prevailed."

In light of what has happened since then, that outcome must now be viewed as a tragic surrender to Geithner, Summers, and the political/Wall Street class -- a "victory" that could lead to the unraveling of the president's entire economic policy.

Just last month, Huffington, while on The View, told us that Geithner and Summers had to go.  Geithner is not a liberal, he's Wall Street, and Arianna has had it with him. 

Why would Obama favor Geithner's take on the bailout to banks instead of Axelrod's?  Perhaps President Obama in his first few months in office needed to disguise the fact that he is in fact a socialist along with Axelrod, but there was too much pressure to "look" the part of going along with Wall Street. 

The free market view vs. the socialist view-Geithner was hired to straddle the line between favoring the banks and their executive bonuses, and the government and its socialist chokehold on the economy.  If Axelrod had won the debate in the beginning, the public as a whole would have considered an all out rebellion against the government taking "complete" control over the banks. 

The long-predicted ever increasing loss of jobs, and non-creation of new ones, has pushed the bailout paradigms from last year off the cliff.  Now that Americans are used to the President's agenda, Geithner and Summers need to be ushered out and real socialism ushered in.

Arianna Huffington has been trying to throw Tim Geithner and Larry Summers under the bus for several months now, and the dirty deed is almost done.  In WSJ this morning under Notable & Quotable , HuffPo is quoted:

Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House...According to Rep. Peter DeFazio, there is a "growing concensus: in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that [Tim] Geithner should resign-and that [Larry] Summers needs to go, too."

On March 24, 2009 on her blog she wrote:

On February 10th, the New York Times reported that there had been a "spirited" battle within the Obama administration over restrictions on executive pay and bonuses, and over attaching stringent conditions to any bailout money given to banks.

The clash pitted Tim Geithner, who opposed the restrictions and conditions, against David Axelrod, who favored them. According to the Times, Geithner had "largely prevailed."

In light of what has happened since then, that outcome must now be viewed as a tragic surrender to Geithner, Summers, and the political/Wall Street class -- a "victory" that could lead to the unraveling of the president's entire economic policy.

Just last month, Huffington, while on The View, told us that Geithner and Summers had to go.  Geithner is not a liberal, he's Wall Street, and Arianna has had it with him. 

Why would Obama favor Geithner's take on the bailout to banks instead of Axelrod's?  Perhaps President Obama in his first few months in office needed to disguise the fact that he is in fact a socialist along with Axelrod, but there was too much pressure to "look" the part of going along with Wall Street. 

The free market view vs. the socialist view-Geithner was hired to straddle the line between favoring the banks and their executive bonuses, and the government and its socialist chokehold on the economy.  If Axelrod had won the debate in the beginning, the public as a whole would have considered an all out rebellion against the government taking "complete" control over the banks. 

The long-predicted ever increasing loss of jobs, and non-creation of new ones, has pushed the bailout paradigms from last year off the cliff.  Now that Americans are used to the President's agenda, Geithner and Summers need to be ushered out and real socialism ushered in.