Mitt Romney's alleged misstatement to the Securities and Exchange Commission about when he left Bain Capital (1999 or 2002? or maybe later?) is getting plenty of airplay, including his own fun attempts to explain it away.
But Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's alleged blind eye to Barclays' manipulation of interest rates from 2005-2009 while he was president of the New York Federal Reserve, which I blogged about last week? Almost crickets, relatively.
And, I have a theory about that.
Republicans, and conservative pundits, haven't attacked Geithner for a specific reason. They know he helped their rich, bankster-type allies, very, very much over those years. They know that he was in their corner.
And, they know that to bring attention to any of this would bring that dirty, messy corner back to light.
Now, that means Obama, other top Democrats and Geithner himself are getting a bit of a pass from conservative flaks right now. (For example, Rush Limbaugh could attack Geithner, but all he can do is say Obama hates America and similar nonsense.)
Now, what about the liberal punditry side? Naked Capitalism has talked about the Barclays-Libor issue somewhat, but with a broader focus than just Geithner.
To name a name, who is knowledgeable about economic issues and a heavyweight among mainstream liberals, what will Paul Krugman write and when?