"Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President", came out detailing behavior that could be most generously interpreted as gross insubordination, if not an outright unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by a political appointee. Nor did Geithner do himself any favors by openly proclaiming before European finance ministers: "He [Obama] 's not in charge; I am".
Has this rendered Geithner a political "toxic asset"? Should he be given his walking papers immediately? Should Geithner be let free when soldiers refusing to serve 2nd, 3rd or even 4th tours of duty in Afghanistan are jailed for years? In deciding a response, which is most important to you: enforcement of the United States constitution, Obama's personal reputation, the Democratic Party's electoral viability for 2012 or polemical use of the issue to further Republican partisan aims? Is there any justifiable defense for a man who has sacrificed the American economy in order to protect his personal friends on Wall Street? Please take the linked survey and let me know your thoughts.*
Plan to publish first batch of results next week.
*As always, feel free to add a comment to discuss further if you like. Just bear in mind that I only make a limited amount of revenue from the Victoria's Secret (tm) banners here, so it may be awhile before I get arround to posting your comments.