Of course the White House is correct that the Times hit piece on Sunday was absurd, but I don’t know what the administration expects at this point.
For example (and there are so many examples):
Now, let’s say you’re the Times or any reasonably intelligent Democrat strategist. As problems erupt (or, often, as you manufacture crises), your greatest need is to deflect, shift and assign blame. Based on years of experience, you know the Bush administration’s standard four-stage response to spurious attacks is to go dark, act guilty, make or agree to a ”fix” that concedes the premise of the attack, and finally belittle your political allies for their refusal to pretend that the fix is a fabulous idea. So when the credit markets seize and the economy goes into the tank, of course you’re going to write a hit-piece like the Times ran on Sunday. What else would you do?
We just had an election in which the decisive financial melt-down was, as Roger Kimball details today, directly traceable to the Community Reinvestment Act and the Fannie/Freddie implosion — Democrat debacles through and through (with Obama as a top recipient of Fannie and Freddie pay-offs, er, I mean, contributions). Yet the Bush White House evidently figured it was beneath the president to speak out about these facts, and the GOP candidate was either blind to or frozen by the appearance of this hanging curveball, somehow deciding the campaign homestretch was, instead, the perfect time for an ode to, and preening display of, bipartisanship. After all, we wouldn’t want to have elections be contests between parties about issues of importance to our lives, right?
And, natch, we got smoked … and now the people who caused the problem have been put in charge of solving it, which is pretty damn bipartisan if you ask me.
It is a big part of the Left’s project to control the historical narrative. If you consistently roll over for them, they will consistently roll over you. I’m delighted to find the White House now, six weeks after the election and eight months after the Bear Stearns fire-sale, telling us all about how Democrats fought off efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie, about how ”Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market — even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks[,]” etc. But you gotta learn how to say hello before it’s time to say goodbye.