You know what, I don't care if he is a smart guy, whiz kid, the "only" person who could be Treasury Secretary, in the manner the Obama administration characterized his nomination, and so on.
I can't stand him. He can't answer a question. How much smarts does that take? Apparently, quite a lot. If that's the case, I'd prefer someone far dumber for Treasury Secretary.
People like Geitner fail to realize our government is a government of the people. Well, let's just say it is, anyway. It is SUPPOSED to be. It runs afoul of that in various ways, but hopefully it is known that we are supposed to be a government of the people. That is critical, that we know and accept that, because even though we will inevitably stray from that principle, it means that corrective actions will ever be in the direction of that principle. In other words, I'm ok with a lack of perfection, so long as we all know what perfection is. And perfection is a government of the people, accountable to the people, and for the people. And that means being able to answer a @#$%^ing question.
So, like I said, I can't stand Tim Geitner. David Gregory, on Meet The Press this morning, asked him, and pressed him on several easy, simple, and very clear questions, and each time Geitner, rather arrogantly, if you ask me, refused to answer, electing to answer some other unasked question instead. If we had an Of-The-People board, that performance right there should be enough to get him yanked as Treasury Secretary.
Our Of-The-People board are our elections. Since the President chooses the Treasury Secretary, our Of-The-People board is the presidential election, and those things only come along every four years. And I appreciate the reasons for that. Stability with accountability. That's what the Founders were after, and they thought a four-year presidential term satisfied that. I'm not saying it doesn't. Well, maybe I kinda am. Actually, what I'm saying is I can't stand Geitner and I don't want to have to listen to him not answer questions in the future.
But, you know, honestly, there is such a long line of that thing. A long history. President Bush and his Attorney General never answered questions about how and why certain U.S. Attorneys were fired. These were THEIR U.S. Attorneys. U.S. Attorneys they chose. But, apparently, after one term as THEIR U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration was not satisfied with the kind of prosecutions they were bringing and, more likely, not bringing. Or so we all have to assume. Because they couldn't answer a @#$%^ing question either.
In the parliamentary form of government, the far more common form of democracy than ours, as soon as there is a "loss of confidence" in Parliament (the result of the current Prime Minister, equivalent to our President, losing a No-Confidence vote), the government changes. Well, the Prime Minister changes. There can still be plenty of yahoos in the parliament.
Pelosi preached "open government" in making her case in 2006 for Democrats taking control of the House. Obama emphasized it as well, criticizing the Bush administration for being secretive, overusing the classification process to keep information from the public and the Congress - which, they did - but then he lets a yahoo like Geitner give these consistently evasive interview performances.
Honestly, if I were Meet The Press, if I were David Gregory, I would do what the White House has done to Fox News. I would say, "No more." I would say, "Why have on the Treasury Secretary just because he's the Treasury Secretary?" That makes Meet The Press into the political equivalent of the red carpet at the Oscars - a vehicle for showing on TV people of noteworthy political office, and that's all. You are a political paparrazi of sorts. That's all you are. You are not journalists seeking answers in the "vigorous and free press" sense that our Founders expected the press to play. You are showing names and faces. You are not digging for answers, explanations, explications - because you won't be getting any out of Tim Geitner.
I think Meet The Press should agree, internally, "Look, regardless what happens with the economy, the banking system, the dollar, the deficit, both here and around the world, let's not invite Geitner. Let's invite perhaps any of his deputies who are either untested in interviews or tested and have shown a willingness to answer questions. And let's not shy from it. Let's have it be obvious as it would be that we want to talk to just about any knowledgeable person besides Geitner on these matters, including his underlings. But no more Tim. We are officially 'done'. Do we all agree?"
I would LOVE for that conversation to take place over at NBC news. They would show so much enviable moxie to do that. And if anyone ever asked them publicly about it, they should proudly own up, and say, "Yeah, we had a meeting of the news division. We cited habitual unwillingness to answer a question. And we concluded we are journalists, and we are getting nothing from this source, so we shall ask our questions and seek our answers elsewhere." That would be BEAUTIFUL. And it would be a check, a balance of the free-market, free-press kind on public officials acting that way. Because you can guarantee that Geitner would be embarrassed by it, and so would the administration.
And, by the way, and very similarly, I think that the Obama administration should similarly avoid Fox News if their assessment is, as nearly everyone's is, that Fox is strongly, powerly, obviously and clearly biased in favor of Republicans (not "conservatives", mind you, though they will tell you that, wrongly, but in favor of Republicans), and that a Democrat President, congressman, senator, bill, initiative, etc, cannot and will not get any kind of fair treatment on that network. Why continue to go there? Why continue to waste the resources sending them there? Why continue to do that? And, as with Meet The Press and Geitner, they should be very open about it.
Elections have consequences. So does being secretive and evasive. So does being biased and prejudicial. Particularly if you are going to call yourself a news organization.
By the way, I think Republicans would be reasonable to do the same to MSNBC. Rachel Maddow and company will never give Republicans a fair shake there. That network is a mouth-piece for the DNC, in the same way Fox is for the RNC. Those are choices. Choices have consequences. The right consequence as far as I am concerned would be for fair, informed, and well-reasoned people to play "keep away" from those networks, and for real news journalists to play "keep away" from Tim Geitner and those like him.
Recent Comments