Christina D. Romer is quitting as chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
The ordinary function of government is to destroy talented people, but Romer's epic failure has an additional element of tragedy. As an economist, Romer did an excellent job [pdf] of establishing that New Deal stimulus failed to end or seriously mitigate the Great Depression. As an Obama team player (and poignantly, a sunny supporter of the then-senator's campaign), she made a 180-degree turn toward pro-stimulus hocus pocus. Romer will be remembered as the main advocate of the mythical "multiplier" phenomenon, in which every federal dollar spent produces more than 100 pennies worth of economic activity. This is the kind of economics you'd expect to hear from a fine arts major.
Maybe it won't matter on the lobbyist/lecture circuit, but at some point a person must say, "I told all those lies and this is all I get for it?"
Showing posts with label resignation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label resignation. Show all posts
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Sunday, September 6, 2009
After ignoring attacks against Van Jones' racism et al, what does the NYT report when he resigns?
If you're the New York Times, smug and liberal, you take pleasure in ignoring news that would embarrass liberals, Democrats, trisexuals or anyone who hates America or longs for the approaching socialist paradise.
The Times and its staff undoubtedly have found it almost erotic to close their eyes to conservative media's relentless pursuit of Van Jones, which have gone to the extreme of publishing Jones's own anti-American and anti-white rants.
The trouble starts when the right wing media attacks result in the sudden resignation of Van Jones.
How would you like to write the Times's lead about the sudden resignation of a sterling public servant, with an unblemished record, who suddenly quits a well-paid, highly visible job in the administration of a president who has masqueraded as a national savior?
It can't be easy, I tell you.
This is how the Times handled the challenge:
"Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs 'czar' on Saturday, after weeks of controversy over his past comments and affiliations had slowly escalated.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Sunday that Jones had resigned because “the agenda of the president is bigger than any one individual” and he did not want the dispute to get in the way of creating green jobs in this economy.
After George Stephanoupoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked several questions about Mr. Jones’s past controversial statements, Mr. Gibbs said that the president “doesn’t endorse what he said.”
Not bad, but certainly far short of inspiring. The Times exonerates Obama by blaming poor vetting for Jones's hiring. But why wasn't Jones vetted properly?
Because Obama already knew that Jones met his basic requirement: he was a hard leftist who was hostile toward white people and the American system.
The Times and its staff undoubtedly have found it almost erotic to close their eyes to conservative media's relentless pursuit of Van Jones, which have gone to the extreme of publishing Jones's own anti-American and anti-white rants.
The trouble starts when the right wing media attacks result in the sudden resignation of Van Jones.
How would you like to write the Times's lead about the sudden resignation of a sterling public servant, with an unblemished record, who suddenly quits a well-paid, highly visible job in the administration of a president who has masqueraded as a national savior?
It can't be easy, I tell you.
This is how the Times handled the challenge:
"Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs 'czar' on Saturday, after weeks of controversy over his past comments and affiliations had slowly escalated.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Sunday that Jones had resigned because “the agenda of the president is bigger than any one individual” and he did not want the dispute to get in the way of creating green jobs in this economy.
After George Stephanoupoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked several questions about Mr. Jones’s past controversial statements, Mr. Gibbs said that the president “doesn’t endorse what he said.”
Not bad, but certainly far short of inspiring. The Times exonerates Obama by blaming poor vetting for Jones's hiring. But why wasn't Jones vetted properly?
Because Obama already knew that Jones met his basic requirement: he was a hard leftist who was hostile toward white people and the American system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
