During the election, the budding economic crisis was being billed as one of the worst financial situations to face our country. Perhaps even worse than the Great Depression itself. While creating legislation for what would be named TARP, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid called on both candidates, Senators McCain and Obama, to get involved in the bailout. Later that week, McCain made the decision to cancel his appearance at the presidential debates in order for both candidates, at the behest of Reid, to go to Washington and help out with the bailout package.
The media and Democrats immediately and roundly criticized Senator John McCain, a war hero and former POW who never broke even under the horrific torture of the Vietcong, as being afraid to debate then-Senator Obama. Some claimed McCain was looking for an easy way out. The Obama Campaign commented that the debates will go on with or without McCain, as presidents should be able to do "more than one thing at a time." The media ignored the fact that Reid called for the candidates to get involved, and instead focused on Barney Frank's contention that McCain's move on the issue was a campaign ploy and that the candidates were not needed. Frank assured us that the TARP legislation was well in hand, being worked out perfectly fine without McCain or presidential campaign politics getting involved.
Fast forward a few months, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have demonized TARP as being yet another terrible legacy of the Bush administration. Obama made the following impassioned comment during his "state of the nation":
Now, I understand that, on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives bank bailouts with no strings attached and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions, but such an approach won’t solve the problem.
Not an ounce of irony to be found in his mouthing of that statement. Yet, when President (then Senator) Obama had the opportunity to change things in the first implementation of TARP, he instead decided to continue his endless campaign for President. Time and Obama's own comments have shown that Obama and Barney Frank were wrong. The TARP legislation was obviously not well in hand and in fact had many flaws. What President Obama is really saying when he criticizes TARP, is that his decision to continue campaigning was the wrong one. The media had it wrong when they pounced on McCain and his so-called campaign ploy to seem relevant. The verdict is in; TARP legislation would have benefited from the input of the two most important members of the two biggest political parties in America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Perhaps this article should not have tried multitasking, as it's all over the fucking map and makes some pretty weak arguments. If you'd like specifics I'd be happy to give you the laundry list.
2 - Silas Kain
Gotta give props about the observations concerning Harry Reid and his duplicity. And for those who say that my disdain for Senator Reid is based on his religion â€" it is. Because in my mind religion does play a part in who we elect especially if they wear magic underwear and believe that Jesus spoke to the Native Americans. But to the subject matter at hand...
President Obama is quite focused. He's focused to getting this country back on track and that requires a multitude of tasks. Solving our economic woes goes beyond saving a handful of banks. It's about placing our entire banking system in complete order which includes the stock markets, unemployment, artificial real estate prices and health care. We need a leader that's going top throw the entire laundry list at us once and for all. Every issue confronting us today is connected. Our collective situation is like an octopus. We are the head and the tentacles are each sector that contributes to it. After 8 years of a President who never got beyond two syllable words, it's refreshing to have a man of Barack Obama's (despite his positions) intellect leading the charge.
3 - roger nowosielski
Good analysis, Silas. For someone who flirts with conservatism, you're being fair.
As to Sussman's comment, I agree, too. "Multi-tasking" is a "legitimate" strategy by today's conservatives by and large. They feel it's incumbent on them all "to dump."
But that's only to be expected: impoverishment of ideas is bound to reduce them to this state of mind.
4 - Joanne Huspek
I don't know if he's able or unable to multitask. I've yet to meet a man who can do the term justice.
As for his performance, he's either inexperienced and faltering not knowing where he's going, or he knows full well what he's doing. It remains for history to sort out the real story, and unfortunately for us, that may be four years and a depression away.
5 - roger nowosielski
But Joanne. That's not his doing. He's in an unenviable position of having to clean this mess.
6 - Clavos
The big question is:
Is he doing so effectively?
7 - roger nowosielski
You ought to have run for office, the astute critic that you are.
8 - Silas Kain
Well, Roger, a TRUE conservative recognizes that the government does not define marriage, dictate morality or bail out the rich. A TRUE conservative recognizes that going green is the wave of the future and taking care of the environment is of paramount concern. A TRUE conservative will stand and challenge any member of the Far Right (especially the vocal Christibans) and tell them straight to their face that they have no business being in the Party of Lincoln. A TRUE conservative has more in common with Matt Sussman, Jet and Ted Kennedy than with Rush and Ann.
And, finally, a TRUE conservative in the Reagan tradition would be completely outraged by Ann Coulter's nasty characterization of Nancy Reagan's praise for the Obama stem-cell reversal. She crossed the line and therefore should be banned from the GOP. But that won't happen because the GOP remains in the control of hypocrites who should be executed for treason.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Joanne -
In the home, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. In the workplace, I must sincerely disagree. In the military, it's nigh unto impossible to rise to a senior leadership position without being able to multitask. I know this because that was one of my greatest failings, and thus I did not rise to a senior leadership position.
But in the military, a leader must know what's going on with his or her subordinates - but on a much more personal level than what is expected in the civilian world. It's not unlike having a number of children equal to the number of people under your responsibility. Add to that the operation, maintenance, and repair of all your varied equipment, and ensuring that everything under your purview is ready at any time for inspection by your superiors...
...there ARE many men who excel at multitasking. I used to call them 'Chief' or 'Sir'.
10 - handyguy
I'm relieved that you don't even pretend to be even-handed any more, OA. [You used to claim to have an open mind about the new president. Ha!] Your articles are the purest propaganda. Even if Obama did do or say something you agreed with, you would ignore it or downplay it.
I hope your continuing series of hateful hit pieces, dating back more than six months now, make you feel better. I think they are as despicable as anything ever published on this site.
50 days. 50 days he's been in office. And you are not just ready to declare him a failure already. You are actively rooting against every word he utters, every initiative he espouses. You are a black hole of negative energy, and if there is justice you will simply implode.
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
"I don't know if he's able or unable to multitask. I've yet to meet a man who can do the term justice."
Oh, I don't know about that.
[walks away]
[unwraps stick of gum]
[falls]
12 - Silas Kain
I have an interesting question or two about multitasking.
1. Many men have purchased GPS systems. How many men turn on their GPS, disregard the directions and still end up getting lost?
2. How many agree that all civil servants from police officers to train engineers should be prohibited from using personal cell phones while they are on the taxpayer's clock? Today I passed by 7 different police cruisers. And every cruiser's cop was yapping on a cell phone. And in two of them, there were dual teams and both cops were on cells. Then I come to a part in the road where the public works crew are laying down some cold patch on what seemed to be the Grand Canyon. Well, let me rephrase that. There were three workers â€" one shoveling the asphalt and the other two on their cell phones. Are civil servants the only humans who multitask?
13 - Arch Conservative
"But Joanne. That's not his doing. He's in an unenviable position of having to clean this mess."
Yes but what if he does thinks that make "the mess" a whole lote messier? Are you going to blame that on Bush too Roger?
So far, to me, it seems like Barry's only going to make a bad situation much worse and yet there are some who will stillinsist he's a god who can do no wrong. In the words of Eric Cartmen.......LAME!!!!!!!
14 - Silas Kain
Barack Obama is closer to walking the Christian walk than George W. Bush could ever imagine. Arch, Ultra-crazed-Right America better wake up and smell the java. I didn't support him in the election, but he is my President and he has my support as he tries to execute a thankless job.
If we are to be real patriots, we will complete the revolution in 2010 by revolting against every sitting member of Congress regardless of ideology or political affiliation. 536 (welcome, Washington, DC) scared shitless legislators will finally deliver the people's agenda as opposed to the special interests.
15 - Arch Conservative
He is my president too and everything I have seen hom do since taking office makes me think he is either a completely foolish and incomptetnet president or one that truly wants to turn America into a mainstream sociliast nation.
I did my part by not voting for a Dem or Repub status quo candidate in the election last year and I tried to convince others to do likewise but they fell for the hope and change bullshit. I guess their lives are going to have to get a lot worse than they are now before they get the point Silas. I hope it does not come to it but it may come to the point where peopleliek you and I have to take arms and be prepared to use them.
16 - roger nowosielski
"Yes but what if he does thinks that make "the mess" a whole lote messier? Are you going to blame that on Bush too Roger?"
No way, Arch. I believe myself to be sufficiently fair-minded not to do that.
17 - pablo
comment 15
"He is my president too and everything I have seen hom do since taking office makes me think he is either a completely foolish and incomptetnet president or one that truly wants to turn America into a mainstream sociliast nation."
I know he is very incomptetnet and a damned socialiast too! :)
18 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
This isn't a "hit piece", it's how I feel about how Obama has conducted himself in his first 50 days in office. And I am not alone in this sentiment. Outside of the Blogcritics bubble, there are many Democrats who are starting to ask the same questions.
Can you dispute the first part of this article, you know, the stuff I wrote about TARP, and Obama's very public decision to not get involved in order to campaign? Better yet, his chastization of McCain for wanting to get involved? Do you really think that now, with 20/20 hindsight, that this was the right move? I can admit that Bush totally f**ked the occupation after Iraq...
Can you dispute the missteps that I note in the second half of the article? You can't. I mean you can make a lot of excuses and heresay, but the point that everyone is starting to wake up to is that the Obama admin is USING the financial crisis to push through an adgenda that does not do anything to avert the crisis, and this is hugely irresponsible (see Jim Cramer).
What's worse than bad policy though, is disingenuous. Bush wasn't the best speaker (though he wasn't dumb regardless of the ad hominems). But Bush didn't ALWAYS mischaracterize the debate, didn't always pay disrespect to his opponents arguments. He would say, "I know some don't agree with me, but this is why I am doing X".
Obama on the other hand continually argues against strawmen. Most recently on his stem cell move. It's not about politics and science, there are already non-embryonic stem cells that work just as well as embryonic ones, without the need to destroy embryos. This is about morality and the value of human life, yet Obama pays no respect to that argument whatsoever.
I don't feel too strongly on stem cells, I think we should do what we can to stoke medical advances, but THE FACT IS there are other options to using embryos, and there is a troubling aspect to forcing tax payers to get involved with such a moral conundrum without their say.
I can recognize the debate, I can respect it. Obama can't, his only response is to mischaracterize the debate and then twist it. This isn't change or hope or post partisanship, it's just lousy statemanship. If Obama had done anything to deserve my praise, I'd say it here but thus far his presidency has been a total mess. Argue all you like, you can't change that.
19 - roger nowosielski
"the Obama admin is USING the financial crisis to push through an adgenda that does not do anything to avert the crisis."
Now, that's a serious charge, OA, and you know it. You are accusing him of bad faith.
20 - The Obnoxious American
A few comments to the various others here on the thread:
Roger: Cute trying to suggest that multitasking is really a conservative problem. You won my friend and thus you now own this mess. Better yet, Obama ran for two years at the cost of nearly a billion dollars for the honor to "clean up this mess." Each time I hear Obama or some dem making excuses for Obama, saying he "inherited" anything, just makes me laugh. He ran for the privledge against several other Americans who would not be whining right now if they had the privledge. Not to mention the fact that Dems were happy to blame bush for the dot com bubble he inherited, and Bush got chastized for basically saying the same thing as Obama says now (though Obama says it alot more often).
Silas: No idea about you my friend, you seem to say some good things, but then throw an ad hominem at Bush. Special interests? Really Silas? You realize special interests, despite the populist anger against, actually represents the people. Special interests help democracy work, by REPRESENTING certain views. Special interest groups are a good thing, part of the process, and when Obama (and you) attack them as "the other" it's just plain laughable.
What you should be railing against is when special interests cross the line between lobbying and pay for play, which by the way is a liberal specialty.
At the end of the day, attacking Bush and praising Obama because he can say bigger words is foolish. I'd expect any conservative to actually listen to those words and judge them not on the number of syllables they contain but rather what they mean for American policy.
Mr Sussman: I usually appreciate your insight, but it's clear you didn't really read this article. This wasn't making a solid case for each issue raised, because I don't have to. The point of the article was that he's doing too much, and not getting a single thing right. The specific instances I've raised could be argued by some if they so choose, but not effectively.
It's great if you've made a more solid case for each item I've mentioned. Perfect. So if people want to argue the specifics of the stimulus package they can do so in your reference. This article is about the whole picture of Obama's policies, which to the main point of the article, lack any focus or quality.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
Come Do you read the news?
Most recently, Hillary said, "Never waste a good crisis".
Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
What do you think is meant by these exhortations? It's totally absurd to even argue this point. Try and explain it away all you like, this is the view of our activist administration, using the financial crisis to push through a radical adgenda.
That's the remarkable thing about Jim Cramer's attacks on Obama. Cramer actually voted for Obama and supports his platform whole hog, Cramer isnt a Republican or even a moderate - he's a Democrat. But he is a Dem who understands the market, and he knows that cap and trade WONT help the economy and that nationalizing health care will HURT the economy right now.
I suggest you give both of his recent articles a read and consider how his dissent has resulted in attacks directly from the president's administration. It's absurd - if you can't see that, I can't see it for you.
22 - roger nowosielski
"the populist anger"
You must be kidding me, OA. Don't go by the voices on BC which crawls with miguided conservatism. The object of your anger should be the corporate world which, while left unregulated, had taken this country to the cleaners. That's what you ought be be indignant about - regardless of whether you agree with Obama as to the efficacy of his would-be solutions.
And I don't care much about the "multitasking" issue. That's small potatoes.
The question still remains, as I put it to you in the remark prior: Are you accusing Obama of bad faith or are you not?
23 - The Obnoxious American
See my prior comment about the bad faith question (or rather lack of question).
With regards to your laying this at the feet of corporations, who actually employ Americans, who are the lifeblood of the economy, take a macro ec course my friend. Government doesn't provide for or make people wealthy, corporations do. The banking corporations that the left loves to bash may in some situations acted badly, giving out loans that they should have. But government asked them to do it.
Regulation isn't the problem, it wasn't the problem. Banks are already highly regulated, it's not the wild west. Selling mortgages as securities wasn't the problem either, it was in fact a good way to use these assets to drive the markets. The problem stemmed from one thing, people getting loans they shouldnt have, at the behest of government meddling with banking loan standards. Try and spin all you like, but I think you'll get dizzy after a while.
24 - roger nowosielski
But we are facing a crisis, OA. And crisis (a Greek term) means decision time. So it's not inappropriate to take a radical stance in situations like that precisely because it presents one with the opportunity. You may not agree with the direction Obama seems to be taking, but many people (in light of the kind of forces which had brought us to this critical point) do.
25 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
You're arguing in circles. The point is, the things Obama is forwarding to resolve the "crisis" won't actually help. It's not that just I don't agree with it. Many Democrats don't agree either (see Jim Cramer), and a lot of economists don't agree that it will help.
Why do you think the market keeps dropping? It's not just a "gyration" - investors are looking at the future and given Obama's policies they do not like what they see. They are worried. That should worry everyone.
Cap and trade will raise the price of every single thing we buy, food, electronics, healthcare, everything.
Paying more into federalized education won't create a single private sector job and it won't make us any more competitive.
Nationalizing health care on the backs of the wealthiest Americans who already foot most of the bill now won't help small or large business. Not to mention that the wealthiest won't be the only ones that will have to pay for this, not to mention that the quality of government health care will be about as good as the governments response to Katrina or a typical trip to the DMV.