Obama and the debt/downgrade crisis: why should anyone be surprised?
The debt crisis is not only a crisis for the country and the world, but for Barack Obama. I’ve noticed that he seems more tentative and cliche-ridden than ever, and that more and more of his erstwhile defenders are growing tired of his leaderless leadership. My sense is that he’s lost at least some of his boundless self-confidence; these events may have shaken him like nothing else in his life ever has before.
But I’m wondering why any of his supporters would be surprised at his passive behavior in the face of the growing crisis. After all, it is highly consistent with his words and actions (or rather, inaction) when the whole thing blew up back in the fall of 2008. Then he was Democratic-nominee Obama, and was widely lauded for his calm demeanor in the face of the financial crisis, especially as compared with what was seen as McCain’s noisy but impotent flailing.
This is what I noted at the time:
Obama is keeping mum on the details of what he thinks of all the financial plans swirling around lately, or what he would propose if he were President in these trying times.
If you’re already an Obama fan you probably think this is evidence of his lofty post-partisan superiority as well as his depth of thought. And perhaps it is. But this would be easier to believe if he didn’t have such a long history of protecting himself””and his status as a blank slate on which people can project their dreams””from commitment.
Obama has historically had two methods of accomplishing this. The first is taking so many stands that he can later claim he actually took the right one, and have the quotes to “prove” it. The second is similar to what he’s doing now: generalized platitudes and then silence on the specific issues (or, in the Illinois Senate, voting “present”). Obama has made a career out of being either a shifting target or a vaporous one.
Procrastination such as this is not such a stupid move in the strategic sense. Get your enemies to commit, criticize what they say, and see how the wind is blowing before you take your stand. Better yet, maybe you’ll never have to take a position, because events have a way of moving along and people have a way of forgetting once a new issue rears its head.
It may even be an excellent tactic to win an election””and in this case Obama assumes he has the advantage in any downtown in the economy, before he even opens his mouth. So, why ruin a good bad thing?
But an election is just the first step; after the inauguration, Presidents have to lead.
Fast forward to now. Dana Milbank observes:
A familiar air of indecision preceded President Obama’s pep talk to the nation…The most powerful man in the world seems strangely powerless, and irresolute, as larger forces bring down the country and his presidency…
Various reporters tried to elicit more information [from Jay Carney after the President’s speech] about Obama’s economic plans and deficit-reduction proposals, but Carney declined again to take the lead.
“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”
“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”
That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency.
I beg to differ with Milbank. It is not a mystery, it is a character trait, one Obama has had all his life. Those who didn’t see it before weren’t looking.
As Glenn Reynolds often says, another rube self-identifies.
Compare Obama’s speech with Sarah Palin’s FB post. She has his number:
“Be wary of the efforts President Obama makes to “fix” the debt problem. The more he tries to “fix” things, the worse they get because his “solutions” always involve spending more, taxing more, growing government, and increasing debt. This debt problem is the greatest challenge facing our country today. Obviously, President Obama doesn’t have a plan or even a notion of how to deal with it. His press conference today was just a rehash of his old talking points and finger-pointing. That’s why he can’t be re-elected in 2012.”
This schmuck and his rat-faced crew of weasels have blamed everybody in sight for the results of their failed economic policies (or conversely, for the amazing success of their efforts at economic sabotage), the “man-caused economic disaster” that the downgrading of our credit rating confirms–they’ve blamed the “terrorist” tea parties who, said one Democratic Congressman, “prevented us (i.e. Democrats) from spending money,” causing the “tea party downgrade”–good luck trying to sell that one, the S&P people who can’t count, and who made a “political decision” that was not supported by any “economic evidence” and, in his most recent, horrendous speech, Obama blamed the tsunami that hit Japan, and, of course, “Bush.”
I suppose we should be glad that Obama hasn’t, as yet, pinned the blame for all our economic troubles on Mitt Romney and the Mormon church, Sara Palin, the Man in the Moon, or on the inferior quality of the mustard used by some particular soft pretzel vendor in downtown Philadelphia–“the Butterfly Effect” dontyaknow.
I think his management style is a black cultural thing. Which asserts you can get your ass whipped but you better not look uncool while it’s happening. So you end up with this cold and detached machine of a man.
Check out Bret Stephens in WSJ “Is Obama Smart?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Steve H, that would imply Obama has some black culture.
Were his ancestors slaves? Did they grow up under Jim Crow? Particpate in the civil rights movement? Did he grow up in a black family? In a black neighborhood? Go to black schools? A black college?
So how does he have “a black cultural thing?” He only became “black” when somebody at Occidental told him he could be the first “black” president if he got some “negritude,” as the French say.
He’s no more black than a chameleon is when it stands in front of a black tree trunk.
Actually, its a very effective leadership style if your goal is to create chaos and fear, increase class & racial tensions, and sow dissension amongst the ranks of the opposition party. BHO is simply sticking to his socialist agitator playbook. That’s all he knows.
no one who knew the ideology, the people serving it, the kinds of actions they have always done, etc…
however, Wiemar II will continue… as now there is talk of QE3 and of course QE4… as the leaders try to convince people that there is still credit and loans…
we have nationalizing the same industries
we have many of the same Volk rules for the favored volk
we have the same groups disenfranchised for the volk to get them to side with the pogrom
we have versions of Positives Christentum, social justice, antisemitism, and other similarities…
now we are getting economic collapse too….
so, what do we need to realize its the same thing happening again by the same methods against the same kind of trusting good people?
when someone asks for a match to light the oven?
I read quite a few of the comments on the Drew Westen NYT piece from Sunday. There were lots of disillusioned people. If only they would stay home on election day or form a third party behind, say, Michael Moore.
It is simply an outward expression of the degree to which this man has internalized the attitudes and strategies of critical theory, cultural relativism, and Alinsky’s approach to being effective politically.
Seat’s getting hotter.
The debt problem will get fixed – either the hard way or the very hard way.
Obama could do a Clinton take the hard way and get out in front and propose and push through real cost cutting and entitlement reform, and then he might have chance at reelection. Real reforms would have prevented the downgrade. Real reforms could probably get it back. But he can’t and won’t so he just has to look in the mirror to find someone to blame when he skulks off Jan 2013 and we’re going to get the very hard debt solution.
expat siad, “If only they would stay home on election day or form a third party behind, say, Michael Moore.”
I’m hoping Algore throws his hat in the third party ring. He’s mad as h*** and ready to rumble. Run Al, run!
Watch him in action:
http://tinyurl.com/3zxf93t
I always thought he would start to come apart at the seams when his supporters turned on him. He’s unravelling. And he’s never had this kind of sustained pressure and scrutiny. His facade is slipping. When it does…..he will be faced with the horror of horrors to a narcissist of his extreme sickness. HE HAS NO CORE. HE IS NOTHING. and the once adoring crowds can see the boy emperor’s nakedness. And they wonder that they never saw it.
“I’m hoping Algore throws his hat in the third party ring. He’s mad as h*** and ready to rumble. Run Al, run!”
JJ formerly Jimmy,
I think you misinterpret The Gore; his rants are not the sincere rants of a madman, they are the rants of a shuck and jive artist. His belief in global warming/climate change is as shallow as a puddle in drought stricken OK. Personally, I’m hoping Feingold will run or dark horse HRC.
“He’s unravelling.”
Beware a rabid raccoon; that’s what my daddy taught me. BHO is capable of anything.
Parker, I could care less what Gore’s rants are all about. All I know is he is has a Messianic streak that might be wide enough for him to think he could pull off the big upset. Obama and he would have to split the watermelon (Green on the outside, red on the inside) vote. I’m thinking old Ralphie ought to get in the hustings as well. The more lefties the merrier.
I agree Obama is still dangerous – in so many ways. Will not rest easy until he is gone.
JJ formerly Jimmy,
I have a hard time imagining The Gore exiting the lucrative lecturer circus, but I champion our idea. Run Algore Run!
I get a sense, maybe false, that many here are assuming that incompetence and knavery will make Obama unelectable. If accurate there is no basis for this conclusion in contemporary or ancient history.
Obama can do everything wrong, but that will mean nothing to those who vote on the basis of sex appeal, race, party, their grandparents voting preferences or ideology, all the emotional ingredients of fashion (the benign term for mob). Bottom line Obama is very much electable in spite of his uniquely disgraceful achievements. In a way he has done something unprecedented; remain fashionable while proving himself unworthy and incapable;, an outstanding performance as they would say on American Idol. . Anyway he can always blame someone else for this and that and repeat the lie until it becomes truth. Children do it all the time so it will help relate to his base.
Which brings up the 2008 election. That said something so unpleasant about contemporary America that seems to have tactfully ignored, as in denied; we’ve become a society of adolescent spoiled brats and will vote accordingly. As so many have noted, the problem is not Obama, it is the confederacy of dunces that trusted him with their lives.
As for the future, recall that behavior is not changed until the subject hits rock bottom (or am I confusing behavior with substance abuse, almost the same anyway), and also that nations behave like individuals. I can only wonder what rock bottom in this country will look like. My fear is that it will become a dictatorship of the bureaucrat as when you need licenses and permits for a yard sale, like that they do in Europe and Niles township in Illinois, that it will become institutionalized and change will become impossible.
I’ll such a bundle of joy and optimism.
The only time Obama has immediately and unequivocally and unilaterally taken a forceful stand on anything without checking the teleprompter for Axelrod’s smoke signals was when he thought the Cambridge police had been mean to Skippy Gates. ?)
So. Bob from VA. What was the alternative? A war hero who became one by getting captured? How many of the enemy did that kill? How many Americans save? Until the Republicans can nominate somebody who hasn’t killed an abortionist, prayed with the most flagrantly hypocritical preacher in the country and done or said something which made every voter who isn’t named Grover completely nuts we may as well stop having elections.
During the 2008 presidential election the local fishwrap (the San Jose Murky News) smugly proclaimed “Obama is more intelligent, curious and analytical than President Bush”. My first reaction was “sez who?” My second reaction was, that would be great if we were electing a physicist or medical researcher. But being President of the United States is about *leadership*. Neo has it exactly right. Obama never did anything, never accomplished anything, never led anything in his life before his current gig. And he still hasn’t.
“Until the Republicans can nominate somebody who hasn’t killed an abortionist”
The aptly named “nolanimrod” needs a refill on his Prozac.