From the WA Times. This is what happens when a policy wonk doesn't get the cooperation he thinks he deserves.
"Obama administration officials say in all seriousness that the economy is better than it seems, if only people were smart enough to get it.
The same condescending attitude pervades portrayals of the midterm election as a "revolt of the masses," as if peasants wielding torches and copies of the Constitution were marching on the ivory towers of Washington."
...
"If there's one thing that progressives can never admit to themselves, it's their own unpopularity. So they seek solace in rationalization. This week, Vice President Joe Biden asserted that it was "just too hard to explain" the administration's many accomplishments, presumably because he thinks the American people are too unsophisticated to understand."
...
"It's not so much that the masses are revolting as that we are seeing the return of the traditional citizen legislator, the nonprofessional politician who comes to Washington for a brief round of public service before resuming a private life. It is the model of Cincinnatus and George Washington, of the Minutemen and Davy Crockett. The diverse group of new candidates standing in this election more accurately mirrors the American people than the doddering representatives of the ancien regime.
The coming election is not a contest between an all-knowing ruling class victimized by bad marketing and an ignorant mass of angry, misinformed troglodytes. It is a referendum on a vision of government and society in which the state seeks unlimited power to make decisions at the expense of the liberty of the people. It is a moment of decision on a failed experiment in governance. If the Obama administration's accomplishments are too complex to explain to the voters, if the beneficial effects of their policies are not self-evident, it may be time for them to question whether they have accomplished anything worthwhile at all."
According to Cass Sunsteen, there's a little bit of Homer Simpson in all of us--I just wonder if he knows that includes HIM.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Of Punching Hippies and Jumping Ship
From the NY Times opinion page.
"Summers, who, according to insiders, was the dominant voice in the administration’s economic policies, announced on Tuesday that he’s returning in January to Harvard (a place that, for him, may not be any less stressful than the White House); Axelrod, the man at the nexus of the Obama campaign in 2008, will leave Washington to start planning the president’s re-election campaign of 2012; and Emanuel, the hard-driving chief of staff, is playing it coy but is widely expected to depart and run for mayor of Chicago following the surprise announcement that Richard M. Daley will not seek another term."
...
"Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand,” adds Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. “This peek at the White House’s circle-the-wagons mentality suggests that Obama is not one to reassess, clean house, and chart a new course after the midterms. It might take him out of his comfort zone. That’s bad news for the country, but music to the ears of the 2012 GOP presidential contenders."
...
"“The announced departure of Lawrence Summers as the president’s top economic adviser is welcome news … I expected the president to have kind words for a man who deserved none if he were to be fired. But Obama’s effusive praise on Tuesday went well beyond the requirements of professional pink-slip courtesy and suggests that he is still in denial over the role of key Democrats like Summers in getting us into this mess … Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the financial meltdown, but he wasted two precious years being misled by Summers and Geithner as to how to respond to it.”
Why did the guy who promised to change the whole system bring in the guys who are most wedded to the system?” asked Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post. “Why is Barack Obama obsessed with appeasing the establishment? Was he being completely disingenuous when he ran on change? How could he possibly have thought that Larry Summers or the corporate executive who might replace him would bring us real change?"
...
"When it comes to the biggest open mouth in the White House, Rahm Emanuel’s, the press is in a bit of a tizzy. “White House aides are preparing for the possibility that Rahm Emanuel may step down as chief of staff as soon as early October,” reported Time’s Michael Scherer. Not so, says Fox News: “The White House Monday dismissed as ‘ludicrous’ a report that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration.” The Times’s Jeff Zeleny has a timetable: “So when will those boxes be packed? The best guess from many inside the West Wing is two weeks — or less.” Well, that doesn’t give progressive bloggers much time to think of fond farewells, does it?"
I think Obama is finding out the same thing Clinton did: to get anything done, you're going to have to learn to compromise and move to the right a little.
"Summers, who, according to insiders, was the dominant voice in the administration’s economic policies, announced on Tuesday that he’s returning in January to Harvard (a place that, for him, may not be any less stressful than the White House); Axelrod, the man at the nexus of the Obama campaign in 2008, will leave Washington to start planning the president’s re-election campaign of 2012; and Emanuel, the hard-driving chief of staff, is playing it coy but is widely expected to depart and run for mayor of Chicago following the surprise announcement that Richard M. Daley will not seek another term."
...
"Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand,” adds Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. “This peek at the White House’s circle-the-wagons mentality suggests that Obama is not one to reassess, clean house, and chart a new course after the midterms. It might take him out of his comfort zone. That’s bad news for the country, but music to the ears of the 2012 GOP presidential contenders."
...
"“The announced departure of Lawrence Summers as the president’s top economic adviser is welcome news … I expected the president to have kind words for a man who deserved none if he were to be fired. But Obama’s effusive praise on Tuesday went well beyond the requirements of professional pink-slip courtesy and suggests that he is still in denial over the role of key Democrats like Summers in getting us into this mess … Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the financial meltdown, but he wasted two precious years being misled by Summers and Geithner as to how to respond to it.”
Why did the guy who promised to change the whole system bring in the guys who are most wedded to the system?” asked Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post. “Why is Barack Obama obsessed with appeasing the establishment? Was he being completely disingenuous when he ran on change? How could he possibly have thought that Larry Summers or the corporate executive who might replace him would bring us real change?"
...
"When it comes to the biggest open mouth in the White House, Rahm Emanuel’s, the press is in a bit of a tizzy. “White House aides are preparing for the possibility that Rahm Emanuel may step down as chief of staff as soon as early October,” reported Time’s Michael Scherer. Not so, says Fox News: “The White House Monday dismissed as ‘ludicrous’ a report that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration.” The Times’s Jeff Zeleny has a timetable: “So when will those boxes be packed? The best guess from many inside the West Wing is two weeks — or less.” Well, that doesn’t give progressive bloggers much time to think of fond farewells, does it?"
I think Obama is finding out the same thing Clinton did: to get anything done, you're going to have to learn to compromise and move to the right a little.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Two More Rats to Leave Sinking Ship
From CBS News.
"...David Axelrod, the president's closest advisor, will move to Chicago next spring.
Axelrod is expected to reassume his role as campaign manager in Mr. Obama's 2012 reelection bid. A potential, if not likely, replacement for Axelrod is current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The dominoes don't stop there. Rahm Emanuel, the president's Chief of Staff, may leave the White House as soon as next month."
It looks like Obama will be down to his B-team for the next 2 years.
"...David Axelrod, the president's closest advisor, will move to Chicago next spring.
Axelrod is expected to reassume his role as campaign manager in Mr. Obama's 2012 reelection bid. A potential, if not likely, replacement for Axelrod is current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The dominoes don't stop there. Rahm Emanuel, the president's Chief of Staff, may leave the White House as soon as next month."
It looks like Obama will be down to his B-team for the next 2 years.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Obama's Top Economic Advisor Leaving
From the Washington Post. One more rat leaving a sinking ship. The damage has been done, so there's no need for ANY of the economic team to hang around.
"President Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, will step down as director of the National Economic Council after the November elections and return to a teaching post at Harvard University, the White House announced Tuesday.
The departure of Summers, 55, will complete the turnover of three of Obama's four top economic advisers as the administration struggles with the political fallout of a stubbornly weak economy."
"President Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, will step down as director of the National Economic Council after the November elections and return to a teaching post at Harvard University, the White House announced Tuesday.
The departure of Summers, 55, will complete the turnover of three of Obama's four top economic advisers as the administration struggles with the political fallout of a stubbornly weak economy."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
President Boo-Hoo
From Fox News.
"Finally, we know what President Obama’s initials stand for! He’s the Boo –HooO president! OK, that’s a little cheesy, but seriously, have we ever had a whinier leader of the free world? Most recently, and quite ungrammatically (it was not scripted into the First Teleprompter), he whined that his opponents “talk about me like a dog”. This doesn’t even make much sense, but is consistent with the woe-is-me tone of this president, who has complained about attacks from the right and the left, and couched nearly every major address with an extreme whine about taking over the White House during tough times. Just for the record, he did want the presidency, right?"
...
"Most recently he has hit the stump, slipping into campaign mode with the ease of someone putting on worn slippers. He has visited cities hard-hit by the recession, and promised to turn around the economy. With the excitement of a life-long celibate discovering sex, he is focused on job creation – just in time for the elections. He’s all for infrastructure investment and lower taxes on the middle class and developing clean industries. But he is not – repeat NOT –in favor of helping out the “special interests.”
One wonders, who are those “special interests”? Obama never really identifies those blackguards, but he does give clues. In Ohio, Obama chastised those who, over the past decade, “cut regulations for special interests,” and in the same speech derides Representative John Boehner for wanting to “cut more rules for corporations”. It’s pretty clear that it is American corporations who are so undeserving of his assistance."
...
"The truth is that these are hard times. We are in a dreadful recession because public policy encouraged heavy lending to non-credit worthy borrowers in order to fulfill a wrong-headed goal of broadening home ownership. This stupidity was compounded by a reckless use of leverage by those on Wall Street who bundled and bought mortgage securities in ways that made them prone to failure. President Obama is right; there are villains aplenty in the narrative of the past few years, and victims galore. He is wrong, though, to channel his community organizer inner self and turn the country against the business community. Small or large, it is companies that will end our unemployment crisis – not the federal government."
"Finally, we know what President Obama’s initials stand for! He’s the Boo –HooO president! OK, that’s a little cheesy, but seriously, have we ever had a whinier leader of the free world? Most recently, and quite ungrammatically (it was not scripted into the First Teleprompter), he whined that his opponents “talk about me like a dog”. This doesn’t even make much sense, but is consistent with the woe-is-me tone of this president, who has complained about attacks from the right and the left, and couched nearly every major address with an extreme whine about taking over the White House during tough times. Just for the record, he did want the presidency, right?"
...
"Most recently he has hit the stump, slipping into campaign mode with the ease of someone putting on worn slippers. He has visited cities hard-hit by the recession, and promised to turn around the economy. With the excitement of a life-long celibate discovering sex, he is focused on job creation – just in time for the elections. He’s all for infrastructure investment and lower taxes on the middle class and developing clean industries. But he is not – repeat NOT –in favor of helping out the “special interests.”
One wonders, who are those “special interests”? Obama never really identifies those blackguards, but he does give clues. In Ohio, Obama chastised those who, over the past decade, “cut regulations for special interests,” and in the same speech derides Representative John Boehner for wanting to “cut more rules for corporations”. It’s pretty clear that it is American corporations who are so undeserving of his assistance."
...
"The truth is that these are hard times. We are in a dreadful recession because public policy encouraged heavy lending to non-credit worthy borrowers in order to fulfill a wrong-headed goal of broadening home ownership. This stupidity was compounded by a reckless use of leverage by those on Wall Street who bundled and bought mortgage securities in ways that made them prone to failure. President Obama is right; there are villains aplenty in the narrative of the past few years, and victims galore. He is wrong, though, to channel his community organizer inner self and turn the country against the business community. Small or large, it is companies that will end our unemployment crisis – not the federal government."
Friday, September 3, 2010
Wall St. to Obama: The Love Affair's Over
From Daily Finance.
"Corporate profits are booming again but President Obama's popularity is sinking fast. The list of financial and business titans claiming that Democratic policies are impeding the economic recovery and hurting US competitiveness, meanwhile, gets longer by the day.
Of course, much of the business sector has always harped about government interference. But now even high profile investors and executives who were once ardent supporters of President Obama are changing their tune. Investors should take note of the fast-defecting business community, since the upcoming Congressional elections could have a major impact on markets in the intermediate term."
...
"The growing discontent on Wall Street seems to echo that coming from business executives earlier in the summer. Once seen as an Obama ally and a key player in shaping things like energy policy, GE (GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt lashed out at the President earlier this summer and accused the administration of creating a sour economic climate."
...
"Investors would be wise to put their partisan biases aside and observe the major shifts. It is telling that so much of the criticism seems to be coming from onetime supporters rather than ideologues who perpetually have an axe to grind."
"Corporate profits are booming again but President Obama's popularity is sinking fast. The list of financial and business titans claiming that Democratic policies are impeding the economic recovery and hurting US competitiveness, meanwhile, gets longer by the day.
Of course, much of the business sector has always harped about government interference. But now even high profile investors and executives who were once ardent supporters of President Obama are changing their tune. Investors should take note of the fast-defecting business community, since the upcoming Congressional elections could have a major impact on markets in the intermediate term."
...
"The growing discontent on Wall Street seems to echo that coming from business executives earlier in the summer. Once seen as an Obama ally and a key player in shaping things like energy policy, GE (GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt lashed out at the President earlier this summer and accused the administration of creating a sour economic climate."
...
"Investors would be wise to put their partisan biases aside and observe the major shifts. It is telling that so much of the criticism seems to be coming from onetime supporters rather than ideologues who perpetually have an axe to grind."
Friday, August 27, 2010
Obama's Dream Car: Government Intervention on Four Wheels
From the Christian Science Monitor.
"If it requires government subsidies to get built, more subsidies to buy, and doesn't actually reduce pollution, what's the benefit of an electric car?"
Good question. One so-called "benefit" is that it would boost demand for a car that ordinarily people wouldn't (or couldn't) buy, feeding into the buy-me-a-cure crowd (his typical constituency) who have more dollars than sense. If everyone had one of these cars, it would theoretically allow us to get off foreign oil (as well as domestic) while lining the pockets of some well-placed portfolios (namely Al Gore's, Nancy Pelosi's, and most assuredly Obama's).
The car itself takes about 11-17 barrels of oil to produce. The batteries in these cars alone cost $3000 and up. We as yet have no infrastructure to plug these puppies in when we're parked. Some benefits!
"In one way it reminds us of the German predecessor: the Volkswagen. A car not produced according to market demand, but for dubious ideological targets. However, the new ‘Voltswagen’, on sale for $41,000, costs, when all subsidies are accounted for, about $81,000. Not only is it worlds apart from the original Volkswagen, but its creation signifies a distorted economy: taxpayers funding a vehicle which can only lead to loss and a shortage. In addition, comes the government subsidy of $7,500 for purchasers of the car, a nice addition for ‘upscale urban liberals’, some of Obama's strongest supporters."
...
"Government intervention stymies market forces. Furthermore, the creation of the ‘Voltswagen’ blatantly derives an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’: there should be electric cars, whether supply is economically feasible or demand is there."
"If it requires government subsidies to get built, more subsidies to buy, and doesn't actually reduce pollution, what's the benefit of an electric car?"
Good question. One so-called "benefit" is that it would boost demand for a car that ordinarily people wouldn't (or couldn't) buy, feeding into the buy-me-a-cure crowd (his typical constituency) who have more dollars than sense. If everyone had one of these cars, it would theoretically allow us to get off foreign oil (as well as domestic) while lining the pockets of some well-placed portfolios (namely Al Gore's, Nancy Pelosi's, and most assuredly Obama's).
The car itself takes about 11-17 barrels of oil to produce. The batteries in these cars alone cost $3000 and up. We as yet have no infrastructure to plug these puppies in when we're parked. Some benefits!
"In one way it reminds us of the German predecessor: the Volkswagen. A car not produced according to market demand, but for dubious ideological targets. However, the new ‘Voltswagen’, on sale for $41,000, costs, when all subsidies are accounted for, about $81,000. Not only is it worlds apart from the original Volkswagen, but its creation signifies a distorted economy: taxpayers funding a vehicle which can only lead to loss and a shortage. In addition, comes the government subsidy of $7,500 for purchasers of the car, a nice addition for ‘upscale urban liberals’, some of Obama's strongest supporters."
...
"Government intervention stymies market forces. Furthermore, the creation of the ‘Voltswagen’ blatantly derives an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’: there should be electric cars, whether supply is economically feasible or demand is there."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
