Finally got around to reading Taibbi’s RS piece, and while of course it is a polemic and written in Taibbi’s trademark style, I’m having a really hard time figuring out what so many folks find so objectionable about it. Sure, there are some mistakes and some areas that a bit over-wrought, but how can anyone deny the basic point he is making? Is there any real argument that the FIRE boys are running the show in Washington, regardless of which administration is in charge? Can anyone name one instance in which the bankers have really taken a hit?
I think too many people are interpreting this as an assault on Obama, and just circling the wagons in blind defense. I’m really not seeing anything that objectionable in the Taibbi piece, and if you recall, folks like Daniel Larison were pointing out that Obama was the Wall Street candidate all last year. And even so, it is clear he was still the best option. I’ve remarked in the past that the only people who seemed to think that Obama was a hard left progressive are the right wing nutjobs and the lefties who wanted him to be a hard left progressive.
If what Taibbi says pisses you off, maybe you should be more pissed off about the fact that all those people are where he says they are, doing pretty much what he says they are doing. And for that matter, I’m not sure what all could be done to change things, as we are about to watch all the fiscal conservatives and “moderates” in the Democratic Senate rape the regulations bill that just came out of the House. It just is what it is. You just watched the “liberal” house vote down “cramdown” again, right? It is infuriating, the situation we are in and the power these guys have, but it is just insane to be mad at Taibbi for pointing it out in his own sometimes flawed way.