Evil Presidentin'

It's always startling to see the ideas wingers come up with to impugn their opponents. Today at Dan Froomkin's discussion that went on from 1 to 2 p.m. ET, there was a doozy.

Seems the right wing has not been able to convince anyone that President Obama created the economic meltdown. Here's the latest tack they're taking.

The president is making the crisis go on longer than it should - deliberately. The more crisis, the more of his evil aims he can pursue, like, say, 'socialized medicine'.

Froomkin is trying to handle this evenhandedly, and I wish he wouldn't.

Minnesota: Here's my concern...Obama is not overreaching so much as taking advantage of the financial crisis in order to implement social programs with an overwhelming liberal bent. He and his administration are eager to not let this crisis go to waste. So why kill the golden goose?

Dan Froomkin: Wait, so you're saying he's intentionally extending the crisis to take advantage of it? That strikes me as unlikely.
****************************************************

Minneapolis: I surely hope and pray they are not. But when you hear the same phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste" and Treasury is slow to announce details of bailout plans, it makes a person wonder. But no, I don't truly believe they are intentionally prolonging this, but I do think they are "using" this crisis to further their agenda.

Dan Froomkin: And that is certainly a supportable argument -- they'll admit that themselves. And it's a legitimately trouble view, if you think what they're doing is going to make things worse rather than better.
****************************************************

Fremont, Calif.: I think Minnesota is doing what many people do; ascribe to others their own motives. There's no doubt the previous administration saw the turmoil engendered by the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to push through all kinds of changes, changes that would not have been acceptable under normal circumstances. Now they see another emergency situation and fully expect others to do as they would.

Dan Froomkin: Well, that's an interesting point. I guess the question in both cases is: Did the president inappropriately spread and exploit fear?

To decide that, you need to decide how scary each situation really is.

I for one still wish Bush had said: Don't let the terrorists scare you. But then, like you say, he might not have been able to achieve his goals.

There just is no comparison between the use of the presidency that we saw for eight years of malfeasance, and the use of the office that we are seeing now to serve the public. I guess if I were somehow forced to justify evil I would want to divert anyone watching by finding something I could call evil in the other point of view.

This accusation of enabling the depression, though, is farfetched enough to think it won't sway any rational folks. There are enough of the commenters on blogs that I see snatching at any excuse to accuse the president of any sort of rottenness, though, that I guess any peg will do if you have a hat you really need to hang. Still, this doesn't look any more viable than trying to accuse President Obama of causing the meltdown that he was elected by.

One question/answer set I particularly liked today;
"Karl Rove: So we're to get advice from Karl Rove? Didn't he help the last guy? How did that work out? Seems to me Obama has a hell of a mess on his hands and it's not time to take a Bush type vacation though. Maybe by August he can ignore stuff like Bush did his first August.

Dan Froomkin: Amazing, huh? Here's Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on the value of Rove's advice. "

The link is to Axelrod saying, "The last thing that I think we are looking for at this juncture is advice on fiscal integrity or ethics from Karl Rove -- anyone who's read the newspapers for the last eight years would laugh at that."

I'm writing some advice to the pundittoes who are concern trolling about the president doing too much; The adults are in charge, deal with it.

And to their editors, hopefully the end is near, as the really transparent motivation of their stenographers daily shows how much they hate the public interest, or is it just the public, and want it to get shafted some more?

The internets increasingly are the one habitat that's friendly to/for rational thought. Welcome to all of you here. Sorry I let the gremlins in. Shhh. They're gone now.

The discussion ended with this great comment from a questioner;
"Obama is doing what he said he would do, and that's what we elected him for. If the DJIA is down, it's because it's not what Wall Street wanted. But that's OK; they didn't vote for him. We did."