Is the beginning of the end of the feel-good, but tragic, farce known as the Obama presidency? In my New York Post column today, I take a look at the avalanche of economic bad news we got this week:
Private-sector job growth is anemic, new jobless claims are still well over 400,000, the unemployment numbers are grim, manufacturing has slowed to a crawl, home prices are falling again, the dollar keeps sinking, 44 million people are now on food stamps, layoffs continue, consumer confidence has hit the skids and the stock market lost 280 points Wednesday and 38 more yesterday.
Welcome to Recovery Summer II…
For what it’s worth, Moody’s is warning that, absent some agreement to avoid short-term default, it may downgrade the nation’s credit rating. “We are on the verge of a great, great Depression,” charged analyst Peter Yastrow.
It’s hard to think of an upside to all this, other than the complete debunking of Keynesian economics and a massive repudiation of the Democratic party in the next election. But for more than two years now, suffering Americans have been asked to swallow the excesses of Obamaism, including its frank advocacy of crony capitalism/socialism, its corrupt functionaries, its overweening arrogance, its crushing regulations, and its complete ineptitude in matters of war, peace, and the economy.
And where was President Obama as this disastrous week began? Just back from a European mini-vacation, he was out on the links again on Memorial Day, playing his 70th round of golf since he took office. Leading from behind, anybody?
“Leadership should come from the top,” Rep. Paul Ryan is said to have told Obama the other day, when the president met privately with congressional Republicans to discuss deficit reduction.
Others in the room characterized the talks as “frank” and “productive” — diplomatic speak for contentious and heated.
Good. This is an argument the country desperately needs to have.
Watching my favorite TV show, Morning Joe, this morning, I was struck once again by the consensus advice of the bien-pensants (except Pat Buchanan) — that the candidate the Republicans need is the one least likely to inflame passions; you know, like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman.
That’s right — what America needs now is a calm, sober, reasoned chin-puller, thoughtfully pondering alternative strategies when the nation’s hair is on fire and the other side is still dousing it with kerosene and playing with matches:
“Leading from behind” — a phrase used by an anonymous Obama adviser in an interview with The New Yorker — is not getting the job done. After two years of unelected czars, increasingly burdensome regulations, executive orders, unread bills rammed through Congress, photo ops, White House parties, international vacations and an endless succession of speeches as the solution to every ill, Americans are hungering for leadership.
The candidate who can best frame the argument as one of national economic survival — and who won’t hesitate to take the fight to the other side — is the one who will be the next president.
Because leading from the front beats leading from behind every time — especially when the fate of the nation is at stake.
What the country needs now is not Omar Bradley but George Patton, and the first candidate who grasps the swagger stick not only wins the nomination, but cruises to victory in the next election.
"What the country needs now is not Omar Bradley but George Patton, and the first candidate who grasps the swagger stick not only wins the nomination, but cruises to victory in the next election."
I understand your sentiment, but I disagree with your metaphor: Patton was inspiring, but he was all about his own glory, the Donald Trump of World War II. Slow but steadily effective, Bradley was Calvin Coolidge in comparison.
If anything, the GOP doesn't need a Patton-- it needs a Grant. Merciless, relentless and focused on winning not just a battle or even a campaign, but the entire war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, we don't have one, yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, who needs "calm, sober, reasoned" guys like Omar Bradley. All those guys did was win the war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe populace needs not only someone that shows distincts between he or she and the current administration, but it also needs someone to raise the spirits of the populace.
It needs someone that is willing to turn this titanic of an economy around point the way to future with passion and be willing to get dirty in the mix to help with the cleanup
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe don't need a George Patton. We need an Attila the Hun, and I’m not even sure that an Attila is strong enough as it is reported that the original actually took a few prisoners!! (Such a weakness is to be avoided.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What the country needs now is not Omar Bradley but George Patton (or Grant - whatever), and the first candidate who grasps the swagger stick not only wins the nomination, but cruises to victory in the next election."
Yes!
And it doesn't really matter which one she is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"and its complete ineptitude in matters of war, peace, and the economy."
You know, Michael, hyperbole may be fun for the writer, but it gets sort of tedious for the reader, especially when counterexamples spring so easily to mind.
Obama extended the Afghanistan war into Pakistan. This was undoubtedly a good move, and it helped us get Osama bin Laden. That wasn't "complete ineptitude" in the slightest.
I've never quite understood the recent upsurge in fulminations about "czars." This title, which of course isn't official, has been around for quite a while. Guy by the name of Bill Bennett, no liberal, was the drug czar once upon a time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA lot of us hated the "drug czar" too and cringed at the time.
D*mn I'm old.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is one fundamental problem here - the economic crisis happened during a time when Republicans had set the agenda for almost 8 years, and what is the Republican response now? Double down on the economic policies of those 8 years. You can see why those of us who aren't Republican or conservative partisans have some skepticism about that strategy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, those terrible Bush policies that brought the country back from the 9/11 tragedy to a 4.5% unemployment and record stock market. Those were awful times - I'm not sure how we lived through them.
It's much preferable to have the cronyism (the Cheney/Big Oil accusations were child's play compared with this administration), the Obamacare waivers going to politically connected companies, the targeted tax credits that allow a politically connected company like GE pay less than 5% corporate tax, the politicized Justice Department, etc.
Whether you like or dislike President Bush, only a hard-core partisan can claim with a straight face that Obama has handled the economy better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yes, those terrible Bush policies that brought the country back from the 9/11 tragedy to a 4.5% unemployment and record stock market. Those were awful times - I'm not sure how we lived through them."
The vast majority of jobs created under Bush were in the exploding construction and housing sector, due to a bubble pushed by a lack of regulation of either F/F or Wall Street. It's hardly an indicator of some amazing growth due to economic policies which were successful.
"only a hard-core partisan can claim with a straight face that Obama has handled the economy better."
Bush's last 10 months in office were 10 months of huge job losses - gigantic ones - and giant bail-outs of the financial sector. When Obama gets to that point, let us know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut consider who was in control of both houses of congress during those last 10 months of Bush's term. And the 14 months prior to those last 10 months.
The President doesn't really have much say in the budget process. He can give his Christmas list of what he wants, but Congress is under no true obligation to go along with it. The President can, however, veto if he doesn't like it.
Democrat controlled congress ramped up government spending, and Bush wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative and went along with the spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, none of that has anything to do with what we are talking about at all. The problem under Bush wasn't the spending rise when Dems took office, it was the job losses and market crashes - neither of which had nothing to do with higher Federal deficits, and both of which had a lot to do with a housing bubble brought about by lax regulations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe housing bubble had nothing to do with lax regulation. It was caused by bad regulation. Regulations that the Democrats insisted on and Bush tried to fix.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but you've repeatedly proven in the comment threads here at NRO that you don't know a single thing about either the economy or what led to the 2008 financial crisis, Mark. I don't know why you think your one-liners and slogans would be convincing to anyone here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't know that disagreeing with fish was the definition of being disproved.
There are a lot of men and women, a lot smarter than you, who also disagree with everything you have written. But I suppose that just proves that they are wrong as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThough, in this case, MarkW is exactly correct about the housing bubble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot in the slightest, sir. Anyone who claims that the various markets involved in the crash of 2008 were properly regulated is simply incorrect.
Mark stated,
"The housing bubble had nothing to do with lax regulation. It was caused by bad regulation. Regulations that the Democrats insisted on and Bush tried to fix."
Nothing about this statement is correct. It's a political slogan that I see on lots of Conservative websites. If you feel differently, I would love to hear an in-depth explanation, taking into account not only the housing market, but the massive failures in the CDO and CDS markets as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou neglected to note that the last two years of the Bush administration was also the period when the Democrats took Congress and, while the Republicans post 9/11 spent too much, the slope of that curve changed dramatically after 2006.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, presumably, you can see why those of us who aren't liberal partisans have come to the conclusion that Obama and his advisers have no clue about what policies to adopt that would allow the market economy to thrive.
By the standards that this Administration set, unemployment no greater than 8%, it has failed miserably. That threshold was set by it, not its political opponents. The Obama administration did not get us into this mess, but it is now abundantly clear it has no idea how to extricate us from it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse