Paul Krugman and David Brooks offer their thoughts on Timothy Geithner and his handling of the bailout in today's New York Times:

Krugman thinks Geithner badly mishandled the negotiations with the bankers before the AIG bailout, creating a deep public distrust which will hamper the government's future efforts to reduce unemployment:
And, as I said, these seemingly safe choices have now placed the economy in grave danger.
For the economy is still in deep trouble and needs much more government help. Unemployment is in double-digits; we desperately need more government spending on job creation. Banks are still weak, and credit is still tight; we desperately need more government aid to the financial sector. But try to talk to an ordinary voter about this, and the response you’re likely to get is: “No way. All they’ll do is hand out more money to Wall Street.”
David Brooks does not agree. He thinks Geithner's "performance during this trial was impressive", and that his "prudence was the key to his effectiveness":
In the next few months, Geithner will be confronted with a cross-cutting set of pressures. First, the need to reduce the deficits, which is uppermost on his mind. Second, the rising populism in Congress, which has to be battled sometimes and appeased sometimes by an administration that hopes to get things passed. Third, intense public cynicism about government, which means that every debate is washed in negativity.
So on the one hand we have the 2008 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, who during the 2000 election campaign concluded that George W. Bush was a liar who could not be trusted on the economy or - by extension - anything else. And on the other hand we have David Brooks, who in 2002 wrote:
ARE THE DEMOCRATS about to go insane? ... Are they about to go into Paul Krugman-land, lambasting tax cuts, savaging Bush as a tool of the corporate bosses? Are they about to go off on a jag that will ensure them permanent minority status in every state from North Carolina to Arizona?
Who should we trust?
Hmmm...


Salon.com
Comments
You see, people now just read the current moment. Although we have at hand easy access to the historic record, we have become cats, every day is a new day, no history.
Danger, danger.