Geithner's GOP stooges

After my posting yesterday about Charles Krauthammer stooging for Tim Geithner, I noticed that Michelle Malkin had jumped on the same Fox News quote.

One of the arguments you hear from Geithner's Republican defenders is that he is the most conservative Treasury nominee we could reasonably expect from the Obama administration. If Geithner gets Borked, it will therefore mean a more leftward turn, and this might be especially true if Obama were seeking vengeance for being thwarted by Republicans.

All of which sounds quite reasonable but . . . but that's not how I roll.

No, my concept of politics is that you take your shots where you get 'em, and when I see a Democratic nominee bleeding in the water, I want to see some Republican shark fins circling. Obama will only present X-number of opportunities for the infliction of political damage, and we ought not begin the process by crossing Geithner off the target list and reducing the number of opportunities to X-minus-1.

Same thing with those Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who seem inclined to give Hillary a free pass on her husband's conflicts of interest. Presented with an opportunity to fight, Republicans ought to kick up as much of a ruckus as they can.

Granted, at such a low ebb of influence, the GOP has limited ability to inflict pain on Obama, but if they start rolling over meekly and refusing to fight at the outset -- especially in a situation like Geithner's, with a financial bigshot who doesn't pay his taxes -- what will they do when the bigger battles come along?