Readers Respond: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7

More reader responses to the "Tone Deaf?" post and my question about what the political up-side is for the Obama Administration in downplaying the AIG bonuses fiasco:

TPM Reader CS:

I work at a university in the "other" Washington, in Seattle, and people are talking about AIG in my office. I ride to work in a vanpool, and we've spent several commutes talking about AIG. I play accordion in a band, and last night band practice was interrupted twice with discussions about AIG. I had dinner with my sister and a neighbor on Sunday, and we talked about the just breaking AIG bonuses. The tone in all these discussions has been outrage.

I understand why Emanuel and Axelrod want us to get back to the big picture, but if they really believe the public isn't sitting around the table talking about this, they've entered the Beltway Bubble.

TPM Reader TH:

I was puzzled by these comments, too. I have been unemployed for a while now, and there are no jobs to apply for. However, I am outraged by the AIG bonus issue, but not because I really care about the bonuses, per se. For me, it's really the "straw that broke the camel's back" in terms of the governance issue. I am outraged that the same people who have been looting the country's resources for the last thirty years, and who think they're doing the great work of the civilization by doing so -- these people are still in charge. And I include Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in that, and probably Barack Obama, too. But people like me seem to be a set of measure zero, so I have a hard time saying that Axelrod is really wrong...

TPM Reader CB:

There is no question that Axelord and Rahm's comments suggest that the WH is tone deaf on the AIG bonus issue. It's not just a distraction - it's something that A) happened on Obama's watch, B) suggests that Geithner is not totally aware of what is going on at Treasury, and C) is completely antithetical to the "Change" platform on which Obama was elected. Obama was elected because people were tired of the same old-same old, not because people wanted to hear "it is what it is and we can't do much about it." We own 80% of AIG, and when is Treasury going to start acting like it?

TPM Reader CF:

Maybe I am on the wrong side of this, but I agree with the administration.

But the know-nothing populist fury erupting around AIG is really dangerous. Right now, the priority is recapitalizing the banks to avert a reply of the 1930s. The criticisms and allegations of malfeasance at AIG and other financial institutions -- many of which may well be valid and merit attention later -- are quite beside the point right now. Worse, all of the foaming at the mouth surrounding this issue threatens to sap the political will needed to undertake the difficult and expensive task of rescuing the economy. I fear that TPM is not helping matters by contributing more froth.