In a editorial at CNN, Ruben Navarrette points out that President Obama clearly does not understand how economics works, and he also astutely points out why people will not call him on it:
Many Americans are so emotionally invested in the Obama presidency that they consider it too historic to fail.
They won’t tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can’t defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.
Ruben, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Given the historical significance of the first black president, people outside of the conservative pundits are unwilling to call him out on his equally historic incompetence when it comes to the economy. This is a guy who really has never done anything in his life that would prepare him for the office and he clearly skipped too many economics courses to go burn a spliff instead.
How’s he doing with this economy (which he cannot go 60 seconds without calling inherited)?
But to many of the rest of us, it’s clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well. He vows to cut the federal deficit while proposing an avalanche of new spending that will — says the Congressional Budget Office — increase it by as much as $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Indeed. He just wants to spend. He just wants to create ever more government dependency and he does not care one bit about the massive generational transfer of wealth from my kids and future grandkids. He is striking while the iron is hot with no concern at all for the future. I thought that I was disgusted with our new President already but that marxist SOB is really starting to make me sick.
Navarrette goes on to point out what is become increasingly obvious even to those who sported the creepy blue and red marxist looking campaign picture of Obama on their T-Shirts: he is not an eloquent speaker, he simply does a good job of reading a teleprompter as it scrolls other people’s words. All this time I thought that he was an empty suit who was very eloquent… now I see that he is just the empty suit.
Here’s the really bad news, though. No matter what else goes awry, Obama’s strong suits are supposed to be communications and marketing. Yet, this week we learned that this isn’t the case when he has to communicate and market his message on economics.
It doesn’t help matters much that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner seems too small for his chair. When he needs to inspire confidence, Geithner does the opposite. Whenever he speaks and comes up short on specifics, the Dow plummets. And when that happens, the Obama supporters don’t care and insist that Wall Street is part of the problem and thus can’t recognize the solution.
For a lot of the Obama Kool Aid drinkers, their messiah could be caught in bed with the proverbial dead girl or live boy and they would find a way to blame it on either Rush Limbaugh or Wall Street. These people exhibited a complete lack of logical critical thinking during the campaign and we should not make the mistake of thinking that they are going to come around. Ever.
According to the pundits, Obama is supposed to pick up the slack and seal the deals that Geithner can’t seem to close. However, anyone who tuned into this week’s press conference has to wonder whether the president hasn’t lost his touch. The popular narrative from conservatives — that Obama stumbles when he is off the teleprompter — is becoming more believable.
When asked by a reporter about whether his budget would blow up the deficit and stick future generations with the bill, Obama got defensive and turned his answer into a slam against Republicans and then obfuscated his way through the rest of the question.
I am sure that you saw that Obama responded to his critics by dropping the teleprompter during his press conference… of course, he simply replaced it with a large TV screen in the back of the room that was performing the same function. It seems obvious that he expected the media to cover for him on that, and after they consistently ran interference for him (with thrills running up their legs) throughout the coronation campaign who can blame him for expecting that?
Mr Navarrette does not have high hopes for Mr. Obama succeeding in terms of an economic recovery. I would submit to Ruben Navarrette that he should question whether Mr. Obama really wants the economy to recover; independent people do not need the Nanny State that the President is further constructing.
How is it possible that someone who was so likeable and so inspiring while running for president could, day by day, be so unlikable and so uninspiring as president?
It’s become more common for people to say that they want President Obama to fail. I don’t want him to fail. I want him to succeed. I just don’t see how we get there from here.
This is unusual for me, but I completely agree with Rush Limbaugh when he says that he wants President Obama to fail. Why? Because Mr Obama’s “success” would be an unrecognizable America that looks more like France or Sweden than the free market leader of the world. Our standard of living and economic opportunities would never recover.
Barack Obama wants to remake America into a EuroSocialist nanny state. If you agree with him, why don’t you just move to Europe? Vote with your feet, you collectivists, most Americans reject your inherently immoral collectivism.
One more thing… I borrowed this spot-on picture from the From Wesley blog: