The Wall Street Journal on Sunday published a devastating indictment of Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew, in which it is noted that Lew and his defenders seem to have a great deal of difficulty laying out any positive qualifications for the job. ”All we can find,” they grumble, “is a list of things that Mr. Lew and his allies claim he was not responsible for.”
Well, that makes him perfectly qualified for a job with Barack Obama, doesn’t it? Obama’s re-election campaign was all about not being responsible for anything, and it worked like a charm.
The Journal imagines gales of nervous laughter ripping through the halls of Citigroup in 2008, if someone had suggested one of their executives would wind up serving as Treasury Secretary just a few years later. That’s not really ironic, though. The point behind everything Democrats did in late 2008 was to re-write the history of the financial collapse. They survived a moment of existential crisis that should have destroyed them, and emerged more powerful than ever. No further contrary evidence is likely to erase their edit of history. If a key figure from the subprime scandal can be President, why shouldn’t a bailout profiteer be Treasury Secretary? To quote the world-class document shredder who became Secretary of State, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”