and the naacp speech, is there an element to this white house that is too reactive on every side so that, you know, the public polls say you should bash bankers more and so he starts bashing bankers. you know, he won t be photographed there are a couple of cases i know of where he literally would not be photographed with somebody from the financial industry. even people who had nothing to do with i won t be photographed with anyone from the financial understand. then you have this business of worrying about, you know, that glenn beck might do a show on something, so you fire somebody. shouldn t they be kind of doing what they think is right for the country, or is that quaintly old-fashioned? no, i think that s very up to date and cutting edge, actually. it seems to me that the big the big factor in that mess was that the naacp labeled her a racist. and of course then what s the administration isn t that good enough for anybody, if the
that, you know, specific businesses, specific lobbying groups, i mean, big pharma and the health care debate, for example, exert a lot of influence and the obama administration has gone out of its way whenever it has to pass a specific bill to, you know, if it s health care you have to get pharma on your side and sort of talk to the insurers, when they were trying to do energy, you know, you re dealing with ge and so on. so people out in the country see that. the business community writ large, though, just sort of sees this you know, it sees washington sort of aggrandizing itself and gets nervous. rik, you are in the white house, and one of the things i m struck by if you look at this recent business with the tape and the naacp speech, is there an element to this white house that is too reactive on every side so that, you know, the public polls say you should bash bankers more and so he starts bashing bankers. you know, he won t be photographed there are a couple of cases i kno