January 25, 2010

When Presidents Lose It

Justin Katz

Has anybody else been writing "What is he thinking?" in the margins of stories like this?

President Obama's latest broadside against big banks may have more bark than bite.

Obama's plan to limit banks' size and risky trading has spooked investors, but analysts say it would have only marginal effect on institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup - and would be hard to enforce. And it's not clear the rules would reduce taxpayers' risk of having to bail out another big bank.

As if on impulse, Obama fired a shot at the finance industry and, in an utterly predictable development, the markets tanked. My theory is that the administration foresaw Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts and wanted to circumvent headlines like "Markets surge on election of Republican." That would be far too straightforward of a lesson for the Democrats to allow the electorate to learn. (Of course, the electorate is learning the lesson by other means.) Roger Simon appears to agree:

I don't think it's accident that the Stock Market is tanking after a very short rally that coincided with the then coming victory of Scott Brown. The business world is scared — as is evidently our Secretary of the Treasury who has wandered about as far off the reservation as cabinet officers normally go, allowing the world to know his skepticism about Obama's new reining in of the banks. (How long before Geithner goes under the bus now?)

The scary thing is that many of us believe the President hardly knows much of anything, certainly not economics, and is surrounded by an increasingly paranoid and defensive group of advisers. It's shades of Nixon, but worse. Tricky Dick, at least, knew what he was doing and could accomplish things. Obama is the biggest windbag to ever ascend to the presidency. He has no idea what he is doing and now things are getting rough. Frankly, I'm worried for our country because this man doesn't really understand what the public is telling him. He just thinks we're "angry.” He’s wrong — we're furious and we're furious because he blames everyone but himself and seems psychologically incapable of taking responsibility. One can imagine a ninety-year old Obama stumbling around in some rest home shaking his walking stick at George Bush. But for the moment Bush is being replaced boy. Now evidently it's the banks fault. The evil bankers are to blame. It's capitalism, stupid.

Simon goes on to suggest that Obama has never really faced adversity before and may be unpredictable for the next year. Moreover, I can't help but think back to those conservatives and moderates who were just positive that Obama would grow and learn once in office, surely coming around to their point of view. An introduction to adversity doesn't appear to be teaching the president such lessons.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Who, in this world, is afraid of Obama? Nobody. But as long as it is about him, he is happy. Has anyone else noted he has started refering to himself in the third person a little more these days?

Jim Miller has been all over this empty suit from the beginning. The fact is Obama is not well read and was probably a C student all his life.


Posted by: dave at January 25, 2010 6:48 PM

I expect that further regulation on banks, limits on size, etc would only spur the creation of more companies. Sort of in the way that all of the banks formed "mortgage companies" as arms of the bank. This also tends to isolate risk.

JP Morgan/Stanley would spin off a JPMS "hedge fund" and any number of other subsidiaries. As long as the parent company didn't guaranty the susidiary, riak would be contained.

All of this reminds me of the famous bullet hole at No. 1 Wall St, left over from the attempt to kill J.P. Morgan. The more erudite among us might recall the Pujo Committee.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at January 25, 2010 8:41 PM

Obama is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American public by the MSM of all time. The liberal MSM was so in the tank for this fraud, they committed malpractice.
Take a look at Tiger Woods, with his, what 14, 15 girlfriends. Are you seriously going to tell me that NOBODY in the MSM knew of his trangressions??? Noboby?? If they didn't they are a bunch of ignorant, lazy boobs. More likely they are a lot of politically correct, stupid liberals who didn't want to be the one to criticize the black guy. And, it's no different with Obama! Hah! What a bunch of frauds. One thing you can be sure of is that we have no clue as to what is really going on in Washington when we are dependent on the MSM for our information. You can rest assured that things are far worse because of Obama's utter incompetence, than the MSM is choosing to allow us to know.

Posted by: Mike Cappelli at January 25, 2010 9:36 PM

This isn't the first time the MSM has declared Obama through. Far as I'm concerned, it'll only remind the people who voted for him why they did.
About time Obama went after the banks. Funny how the same people who credit Brown's victory to populism change their tune.

Posted by: rhody at January 25, 2010 9:53 PM

"About time Obama went after the banks."

What are the banks doing wrong now? It would seem that all the banks who struggled are gone out of business. Why does he need to go after them?

Posted by: Patrick at January 25, 2010 9:59 PM

Rhody just mouths slogans and catchphrases.He hasn't had an original thought yet,except when he just makes thiings up.

Posted by: joe bernstein at January 25, 2010 10:36 PM

Perhaps I need to start ad hominem insults and namecalling the way Joe has been doing increasingly against others who disagree with him.
I don't feel so special anymore LOL.

Posted by: rhody at January 26, 2010 10:35 AM

Narcissists don't react well when they don't get their way.

And Obama is definitely a clinical example of "narcissistic personality disorder."

Posted by: Ragin' Rhode Islander at January 26, 2010 12:27 PM


What do you expect? Katz's post comes under a topic heading (obamanation) that's insulting. He refers to elected representatives as "stooges" because he disagrees with their vote on legislation. He calls a major political party the "Party of Death" in his post "The Federal Church of the United States of America" on January 17th. Who does the insulting and to whom it's directed seems to be the rule here in that time honored Rhode Island tradition. I do not know what you can do in this situation except to do what you would do with a angry driver who has picked you out to work out their anger problems. I was in the granny lane minding my own business with the occasional exception of offering up a little advice to one who may have had a little too much last night and I ran afoul of the law.

Posted by: Phil at January 26, 2010 12:40 PM

Rhody-have at it.I am pretty much impervious to name calling,since I heard a lot worse than you can think of doing my job.
What I don't appreciate is you lying about me.You accuse me of making threats when I haven't.That sucks.
That is why I call you what I do.There are others here with whom I disagree entirely or in part and haven't taken ad hominem shots at them.OTL for instance-I think he's off the wall in his opinions,but he hasn't made false allegations.Same for Phil and some others.
"Pragmatist" really had a lot of gall with his comments about "respectful silence" re:MLK and I let loose on him-was he even born back then?

Posted by: joe bernstein at January 26, 2010 2:06 PM

Rhody writes:

"He refers to elected representatives as "stooges" because he disagrees with their vote on legislation."

I think "stooges" is a kind way to refer to legislators who agree to vote for a Health Care bill if their home state is exempt from taxation. (talk about "beggar thy neighbor")

What do you call legislators that agree to a vote on Christmas Eve, when no one is watching?

Posted by: Warrington Faust at January 26, 2010 3:11 PM

I noticed on RIF that Pat Crowley posted a diary full of bitter disappointment in Obama.Not much staying power there-wasn't Pat the one who got all decked out and then found out his ticket didn't get him into the inauguration after all.Maybe he should've heeded that as a distant early warning of the coming incompetence.
I mean,look at Sunday-three Presidential confidante's(well,maybe two and a publicity guy)couldn't get a consistent story going on how many jobs were created/saved.At least two,and probably all three are wrong.Did they just free associate to come up with their figures?
I know when Bush screwed McCain in 2000 I swore I would never vote for him,and I didn't.Frankly,I think he and Cheney sucked,and got us this ineffective teleprompter orator into the Oval Office.
I try to stay consistent.
Jerzyk hasn't lost faith in Obama-he's pretty consistent too.Wrong,however.
I have been bothered by something.Sheldon Whitehouse proved himself a bald-faced liar when he tried to say that he wasn't referring to the general populace that has protested when he went on his filthy diatribe.He claims he was talkintg about Congress.So,does he really beieve Congress is harboring "birthers,militia members,and Aryan Nations supporters"(to paraphrase him)in any numbers or at all?He was talking about those of us who don't like what this administration is trying to do.He can go to Hell.

Posted by: joe bernstein at January 26, 2010 6:12 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.