Six Basic Questions: Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why.
If you're really interested in finding out what someone else thinks, you ask them all and discuss with that high purpose. If you're not really interested, you ask a few of these questions, then argue less productively, perhaps needlessly, and in unfortunate cases to deliberately annoy and inflame.
The Mistake of the Week is to claim that criticism of Geithner (and/or Summers) and therefore implicitly Obama, is always in service of and/or equivalent to the overall Republican desire to attack Obama along any line, inlcuding along the Geithner line.
What: criticism of Geithner.
Who is criticizing: Liberals and conservatives. Let's select Paul Krugman and Connie Mack as representatives for their groups.
When/Where: not specifically relevant at this time. Anyone with an example of relevant When/Where, please comment. At this time I think the only When would be the AIG Bonus Knowledge timeline, and that's not a Krugman topic of overall economic recovery strategy.
How: OK, some diversification here. Paul Krugman is primarily criticizing Geithner's policies prior to their implementation, whereas Mack focused more on criticizing Geithner's performance in review:
"The American people have lost all confidence in the secretary. Everything he has touched has been a failure," said Congressman Mack, "We need someone who has the skills to get the job done and move our economy forward." Mack says, "All of his actions have shown an inability to be effective. I'm asking him to step down or the President come back to Washington and ask for his resignation."
While President Obama is standing by Geithner, Mack questions what's really going on in Washington.
"Even though the administration doesn't want to admit it, I'm sure they're asking themselves, 'What is going on?' and 'Is he the right guy for the job?’" Mack said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
I'm assuming we're sufficiently familiar with Krugman's arguments to avoid a re-post here.
Now, Teh Biggie: Why.
Can one claim that Krugman's motive is similar or equal to Mack's motive? You can ask and answer this question yourself, but my answer is No.
Krugman's motive is a wish to see the economic problem solved, and he sees the opportunity to enact long-needed changes and reforms to do it. That doesn't mean everything he says is right, but he's doing his best under the circumstances to understand and solve the problems. The implication that his motive is actually some anti-Obama remnant of his support for Edwards and then Clinton in the primary is unsupported speculation. If one's going to advance that idea, do it with Krugman's direct words to that effect, or let it be, because without proof it is not relevant to policy.
Mack's motive is the GOP motive: erode the Obama Administration at any chance. He's making an opportunity of the crisis too, but he's using recent evidence as an already-final judgment upon Geithner to build momenteum against the Administration. They hope that if they can get Geithner canned, they might get someone else canned later, as an excercise of power. He didn't address any of Geithner's moves that he thought were a mistake--and why they would be a mistake--because he doesn't care (and probably doesn't know). All he wants, like Limbaugh, is Failure to point at and yell about.
This is a bipartisan nonpartisan crisis. It affects everyone. Our full spectrum responses from liberals and conservatives may seem superficially similar, but our motives will be different, and THAT makes a huge differences in our discussions. Here on DK we do not expect one to advance the Mack motive, but our sensitivity to trolls will on occassion trigger the response to that motive against someone who's advancing the Krugman argument. We are susceptible to believing that ALL criticism, regardless of motive, has the same effect, and this is not true. Why Matters.
In a similar vein, it doesn't follow that any/all praise of Obama or Geithner indicates a blind or slavish faith in either. Ask Why; it Matters.
It's super-important that we not make these assumptions of each other, because it fragments us. We may not all be best friends here, or be under any obligation to be so, but we can agree that we should not be wasting our precious time arguing pointlessly instead of constructively. We share a motive with each other that we do not share with the Republicans: the simultaneous support of our the President AND support of ideal policy which we would like to see from our the President.
Give your fellow Kossack the benefit of the doubt on motive unless answers to all six questions, especially Why, indicate that a particular Kossack is really a troll. Life's too short to be punching our friends and allies in the face, and people need to be allowed to present differing opinions and even make mistakes without being personally attacked. Just look at the reaction to Frank Rich today. DK and Rich have been on the same side for a long time now. Is one disagreement grounds for separation? No. Discussion, yeah; disagreement, fine. But we can't forget who our friends are in a heated moment. We need each other, and the last thing we need to be doing is subconsciously questioning each other's motives without even realizing it.
These orange and black names on your screen are people. Assume their goodness, and let them prove otherwise only through great effort. Thick skin is a bonus, not a requirement, for participation, or else the biggest assholes win.