1. The bailout was sold to Congress as a way to get rid of toxic debt (or financial WMDs as Buffet calls them) gumming up the banks. Lately TARP bailouts are being justified simply as a general all-purpose recapitalization tool for rescuing any failing industry.

2. The Iraq war was sold to Congress as a way of preventing weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of a rogue nation. Later the war was justified as simply the removal of a bad man from power over a failed nation.

Both cases seem to fit the definition of bait and switch.

Your point about avoiding downturns — what I would call an asymmetric monetary policy is certainly at fault here.

Will Obama change things? I am not so certain. His top guys, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner are all part of the financial orthodoxy.

So, again, I am not clear that he Democrats are going to do any differently.

The point is that the Bush Administration has been rather bold about promoting its own agenda. Regardless of whether you agree with that agenda, the fact remains that the Democratic Congress has been incredibly conciliatory in allowing the Administration to run with its agenda.

Now, regarding Iraq, we were sold on the invasion because of WMDs which turned out not to be there. However, Wolfowitz admitted that this was only a fig leaf chosen for “bureaucratic” reasons. Remember that quote?

I think this is a quote that sums up the Bush Administration’s modus operandi quite well. Again, you can agree with their objectives, but the way they go about achieving those objectives is very much an ends justifies the means approach.

I find this cynical and I would prefer an administration that uses a different approach.

Now, where’s that binky?