In his Wall Street speech, President Obama relied on a common rhetorical crutch which was defining what is and is not a legitimate argument. Charles Krauthammer made a fantastic observation:
The way, and he has done this before — he tries to denigrate, cast- out, and de-legitimize any argument against his. And here he is talking about that it’s not legitimate even to suggest that the bill he is supporting might encourage a bailout. It’s certainly possible there had been strong, very good economists and others who have argue because of the provisions in the ball, and one in particular, where a treasury has the right to designate any entity, private entity a systemic risk and then to immediately, even without Congress approving and appropriating money to guarantee all the bad loans, that is an invitation to a bailout.
Now the president could argue otherwise, but to say that to raise the issue is illegitimate is simply appalling. What he is doing here is he is making a lot of provisions that will be changing a very complex financial system. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit you can’t predict all the outcomes. The president has a tick in which he presents himself as having this sort of academic, reasonable discourse, but it really has inside of it a sharp edge of partisanship. He won the presidency. That gives him a big house, a lot of power, and a fabulous airplane but does it not make him the arbiter of American political discourse.
Emphasis mine. When has Obama ever actually given an example of a counter-argument he finds convincing or even legitimate?
