Reporting on variousWhite House personnel changes, specifically the idea that Clinton administration veteran Gene Sperlingwill soon head the National Economic Council, the New York Times explains (1/6/11):
Mr. Sperling, much like Mr. Obama, is a liberal but with a pragmatic bent.
“Pragmatic,” in corporate media code, means “centrist,” because it’s an article of faith in journalistic circles that smart Democrats move away fromtheir progressive base.
The Times adds:
Some liberal activists have opposed his becoming the director because of his openness to compromise with Republicans, and because he once was a well-paid consultant to Goldman Sachs, managing a charitable program to teach skills to poor women in Africa and elsewhere.
If a piece is supposed to explain what “liberal activists” think of Sperling and others,a reporter should go ahead and ask some of them. Instead the Times makes it sound like progressives dislike Sperling’s work to help poor African women.
For an actual critique of Sperling’s record,check Dean Baker’s blog:
The primary issue is not that Sperling got $900,000 from Goldman Sachs for part-time work, although that does look bad. The primary issue is that Sperling thought, and may still think, that the policies that laid the basis for the economic collapse were just fine.
Sperling saw nothing wrong with the stock market bubble that laid the basis for the 2001 recession. The economy did not begin to create jobs again until two and half years after the beginning of this recession, and even then it was only due to the growth of the housing bubble. Gene Sperling also saw nothing wrong with the growth of that bubble. Gene Sperling also saw nothing wrong with the financial deregulation of the Clinton years which, by the way, helped make Goldman Sachs lots of money. And he saw nothing wrong with the over-valued dollar which gave the United States an enormous trade deficit. This trade deficit undermined the bargaining power of manufacturing workers and helped to redistribute income upward.
In short, Sperling has a horrible track record of supporting policies that were bad for the country and good for Wall Street.
Ironically, this issue was recently addressed by Firedoglake: How to Rip Off The Public as a Corporatist
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/01/02/how-to-rip-off-the-public-as-a-corporatist-democrat-play-two/
It appears that the NYT is following the FDL script exactly :p
So BAM hired another lemon?Can’t say Im surprised.Everyone he brings in will be flawed as a matter of course.The head honcho does not have a clue.He can only support those who are just as befuddled and they him.
Like an amoeba, Michael e responds to a variety of stimuli with a single response. And like an amoeba, that may be the extent of his range.
The nyt just like every other good little lapdog corporatist right wing media outlet talk about everything apart from the real issues. Mental midgets like michael e follow their lead.
“So BAM hired another lemon?”
No, President Obama brought in another Wall Street connected moderate. Reading for comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?
I’m not qualified do determine if this was a good or bad decision, but why does Obama think that those in part who were responsible for many of the problems of Wall street in 2008 have more of a clue now than they did then? It seems that the last 2 years have not been total losses, there are still major problems with unemployment, foreclosures, drug policies, and so on, but I have seen others’ qualifications and it’s unclear why he didn’t choose someone else.
Daly, as Chief of Staff is another choice that, even though Howard Dean praises, I question. Stiglitz would have been my choice for Chief of Staff.