Economist: Obama’s not who we thought he was

posted at 9:38 am on March 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The fact that Barack Obama won endorsements from most daily newspapers comes as no surprise to American readers, as they mostly go with Democrats regardless of the specific candidates.  Some of us got surprised when publications like The Economist chose to back Obama, however, considering their normally sober analysis of economics and the radicalism and inexperience Obama brought to the campaign.  Now, The Economist has had a Road to Damascus moment just two months after their candidate took office (via QandO):

His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.

Why “curiously”?  After all, Obama had next to no executive experience before running for the presidency.  His only executive experience came at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama spent over $160 million and had no effect on education.  He has never been responsible for a public budget, public appointments, or economic policy.  And they find his poor performance “curious”?  Would The Economist have hired Obama to run their magazine based on his resumé and then found his incompetence “curious”?

The magazine then scolds Obama for not doing the basics:

His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: too much of the money will arrive too late to be of help in the current crisis. His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor’s, is wildly optimistic. And he has taken too long to produce his plan for dealing with the trillions of dollars of toxic assets which fester on banks’ balance-sheets.

How is it “more honest” than Bush?  Deficits actually went down during Bush’s second term, at least until 2008.  Obama says he’s all about reducing the deficit, but even by his own OMB predictions, the Obama budgets never return even to the 2008 level in the next 12 years.  By the CBO’s account, both of which rely on “wildly optimistic” growth during the period, Obama won’t even come close.  Now that Social Security surpluses have vanished far more quickly than anyone except George Bush predicted, they’ll get higher than either prediction.

The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate’s fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks of people who have chosen or been forced to withdraw; and it was only this week that he announced his candidates for two of the department’s four most senior posts. Filling such jobs is always a tortuous business in America, but Mr Obama has made it harder by insisting on a level of scrutiny far beyond anything previously attempted. Getting the Treasury team in place ought to have been his first priority.

As I reported weeks ago, the Obama administration has done almost nothing to staff what should be the highest-priority positions in an economic crisis.  That’s simply executive incompetence, and it can’t all be blamed on Obama’s level of scrutiny.  The man at the top of Treasury committed tax evasion, and he’s still around.  Obama issued a waiver a day for his anti-lobbyist policy in the first two weeks of his administration. If there are literally no candidates of any qualification who have paid their taxes properly, maybe that’s an indication that we should simplify our tax codes rather than make them even more complicated and punitive, as Obama has proposed.

Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved. His stimulus bill attracted only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. … Republicans must take their share of the blame for the breakdown. But if Mr Obama had done a better job of selling his package, and had worked harder at making sure that Republicans were included in drafting it, they would have found it more difficult to oppose his plans.

What share?  Obama outsourced the stimulus to Pelosi, who locked Republicans out.  The Economist even noted that earlier in this article!  Obama abdicated leadership on the stimulus plan and endorsed Pelosi’s “we won” policy — in fact, explicitly repeating it to Republicans whom he courted.  The Economist hits Democrats next, however:

If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around. They are pushing pro-trade-union legislation (notably a measure to get rid of secret ballots) even though he doesn’t want them to do so; they have been roughing up the bankers even though it makes his task of fixing the economy much harder; they have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.

They’re doing all of this despite Obama?  Hell, no.  Obama himself talked about “shaking with outrage” over the bonuses and openly encouraged the “clawback” movement on Capitol Hill until saner heads prevailed.  The Economist must also have missed Obama’s promise to Big Labor during the campaign (which got The Economist’s endorsement, remember) to make Card Check one of his top priorities once he got elected.  He co-sponsored it in the Senate in 2007.  In fact, in January, Obama told the Washington Post of his continuing support for it.   Does The Economist believe in research any longer?

If Obama is not who The Economist thought he was, then the fault lies with The Economist and not Obama.  The scales may be falling from their eyes now, but if they had done their jobs a few months ago, it wouldn’t be necessary at all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yes, doing what he said in the campaign that gave him a mandate shocked some but he saved the economy.

getalife

Like how? His on ‘stimulus’ based on expenditures really don’t start spending till 2011.

Dr. Dog on March 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Hey, getalife, how exactly has your Obamessiah “saved” the economy? It’s in the toilet.

OhioCoastie on March 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM

SKYFOX
On reverse discrimination, OUR CONSTITUTION promotes the essence of the MLK message on his federally sponsored holiday: that REGARDLESS OF COLOR, each person is to be recognized for their own substance.

We knew who MLK was before his “friends” revised his sacrifice to meet their own racist ends for profit that, sadly, are stuck on stupid perpetual self-identity within a victimization mode regardless of opportunities provided to succeed.

maverick muse on March 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Why “curiously”?

Because its the economist…they temper almost all their assertions with this type of polite aside.

How is it “more honest” than Bush?

I’ll assume they’re referring to the war funding being included in the deficit.

and as for your final assertion…if you would have read pieces supporting Obama, you’d know it had much to do with their having little to no faith in McCain and Palin…not that they saw all these wonderful things in Obama. and given then, we’ve gotta ask ourselves what McCain would be doing right now…were he president. seriously, the guy who “ran back to washington” to twiddle his thumbs…what would he be doing right now?

ernesto on March 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Who gives a rat’s ash what McCain would be doing. Barry is at the plate and the game is on.

Limerick on March 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM

There’s plenty of disillusionment to go around. The Economist is not the sober publication I thought it was.

obladioblada on March 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Agreed.

myrenovations on March 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Fantastic analysis, and a primer on the doltish and dishonest media that infects our culture. Sadly, the Economist may be the least bad example.

In all modesty, about a year ago I was making these exact arguments about Obama (predictions, then) among the Ivy League-educated liberal film crowd in Malibu and no one would hear it. Obama was Moses, and “exective experience” was a hoary criterion dragged out by failed neanderthal neocons to destroy a true savior of our world.

rrpjr on March 28, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Ed, this is a great post. Terrific work!

The Economist, FT and Bloomberg have been a huge disappointment for me. Bloomberg’s commentators have been nearly as giddy and childish as others in the MSM.

Understanding Obama isn’t difficult. These recent revelations on the part of the financial press are particularly startling, and they, too, have lost credibility. Once again, in early 2005 it took me one weekend doing my own research to understand that BO was not qualified for the job he wanted. Even if he applied himself and worked hard during those years prior to the election he would not have enough time to acquire the requisite qualifications. Moreover, his background and affiliations clearly indicated that he is not a centrist in any way.

The media deserve all the scorn and derision that the public can deliver. When the financial press joins the ranks of the rest of the MSM slugs, it’s a sad state of affairs.

Cody1991 on March 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Who gives a rat’s ash what McCain would be doing. Barry is at the plate and the game is on.

Limerick on March 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM

my only point was that there is a definite difference between those who endorsed Obama because they agreed with the rhetoric and the positions…that they considered Obama an excellent candidate regardless of the field…

and those who endorsed Obama because McCain/Palin came across as somehow even more inept than Obama. Also remember with the economist, they’re brits…we can only imagine how Sarah Palin made them feel.

ernesto on March 28, 2009 at 11:26 AM

A well-blogged classic. I have faith you’ll eventually recognize the non-staffing tactic is to concentrate maximum crisis power in the hands of a few key players and quickly push their radical plan to remake our society. With no potentially disloyal people around, no one is in place to blow the whistle and resign in protest. They don’t want any more exposure by honest Judd Gregg types.

Later hires will just be implementers of a done deal with no stake in the decisions being made.

econavenger on March 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Also imperative is the destruction of America’s wealth via the stock market. Dependency, thy name is socialism.

anniekc on March 28, 2009 at 11:26 AM

No s – - t Sherlock!

rplat on March 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM

I second that – and I neither read nor work for The Economist.

It just boggles the mind that people who should have known better fell head over heels for this Major Deception. But again, there are much stronger forces at work than can be understood or controlled by human methods…

newton on March 28, 2009 at 11:30 AM

what would he be doing right now?

ernesto on March 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Usually what would happen with a Republican President and a Democratic congress is you would get the trade off of tax cuts for increase spending. But McCain is an oddball, he is more principled on spending and less so on tax cuts (though he has a good record of not raising taxes). McCain’s overarching principle is to be bi-partisan; thus, he would let Pelosi and Reid have more control of the budget. The budget would look nearly the same (with the current tax system more or less retained), but the GOP would get the blame for deficits.

WashJeff on March 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Yes, doing what he said in the campaign that gave him a mandate shocked some but he saved the economy.

getalife

Like how? His on ’stimulus’ based on expenditures really don’t start spending till 2011.

Dr. Dog on March 28, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Well, they couldn’t take the chance that the economy might recover before they were done milking the crisis, you know.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM

If there are literally no candidates of any qualification who have paid their taxes properly, maybe that’s an indication that we should simplify our tax codes rather than make them even more complicated and punitive, as Obama has proposed.

I agree with simplification of the tax structure, but I reject the notion that any of these appointees’ tax issues have anything to do with tax code complexity. There are many products and services available that make it inexcusable. Why is it the rest of us non-pedigreed people can figure it out? Just what are they teaching at these Ivy League schools? I would think you’d have to pass basic math competency, eh? What is it they say…. ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law!

PrincipledPilgrim on March 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Take a hike, crappy libstink elitist magazine.

whitetop on March 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Just reading bits from the main stream media and ran across this article about the Chinese challenging global financial leaders, mostly us! no surprise, but I did read a sentence in there that the Chinese attribute their financial success to a combination of authoritarian government apparently allowing just enough free but controlled capitalism to make them wealthy. (my words and interpretation, not the AP)Maybe this is the model obama is working from or on or toward? I recall he admired much that was Chinese.

jeanie on March 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I did that backwards…. meant to quote Ed, not myself… oops!

PrincipledPilgrim on March 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Yes, doing what he said in the campaign that gave him a mandate shocked some but he saved the economy.

getalife

Yeah he saved the economy by drowning it it debt. Nothing Obama has done will ever have a positive effect on the economy. He has utterly and completely failed on the economy. It fell so much further than it should have. Some have taken advantage of the false bottom Obama created but this doesn’t create any real wealth. Obama is an utter and complete failure on the economy. He is in so far over his head he should resign.

petunia on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The ‘elite’ continue to demonstrate that they are far less intelligent than they believe themselves to be.

maryo on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Or McCain would have the country at a complete stalemate over a battle on earmarks in the continuing resolution.

myrenovations on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Obama is deception personified. He is one big lie.

petunia on March 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM

The best way to tell if Obama’s lying is to watch and see if his lips are moving.

Kjeil on March 28, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I had lunch with an Obama voter the other day. She said she felt utterly betrayed. She’s really angry and said that many of her fellow Obama voters feel the same way.

They were lied to. And now their lives and their children’s lives will be affected for many years to come. Put simply, they were betrayed and they are angry.

I used to sneer at folks driving around with Obama Biden bumper stickers. Now I just feel sorry for them.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The Economist finally pulls it’s head out of it’s ass. Good thing I dont rely on this publication, or any other to make decisions for me.
asshats

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on March 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=awlKjmSzRlvU&refer=latin_america

But it’s tolerable in every Sanctuary City in America? Of course it is!!!

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Obama himself talked about “shaking with outrage” over the bonuses and openly encouraged the “clawback” movement on Capitol Hill until saner heads prevailed.

If one executive is harmed by some nut Obama should be charged as an accessory for encouraging nut cases to violence. For a president to incite rage against a private citizen is against all this country stands for. He would be impeached if he made such statements about terrorists.

Herb on March 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-license0326,0,2919406.story

W.E.T.B.A.C.K. State?

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I subscribed to the Economist when I was in business school, and stopped my subscription after six months due to the anti-semitism. The Wall Street Journal does better analysis, they do it six times a week, and they do it without the European hangups.

joe_doufu on March 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM

petunia on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM

As I see it, he hasn’t saved the economy. He’s just given it a short term reprieve. At some point, all this spending money we don’t have has got to generate repercussions. Have no idea what these will be, but would be willing to entertain some sort of inflationary rebound.

jeanie on March 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I used to sneer at folks driving around with Obama Biden bumper stickers. Now I just feel sorry for them.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

-
I have taken to looking at the drivers of those cars. Most, as in 80% or so, have a blank almost worried look on their faces. Also as someone pointed out here a few weeks ago, the Obama stickers seem to be coming off. Very few left in the Philadelphia area…
-

RalphyBoy on March 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Anyone who says that Obama is not who they thought he was is either an idiot or a liar anyways. There was more than enough evidence during the campaign that Obama is exactly who he’s being now. The fact that he’s broken so many campaign promises is a surprise only to those who didn’t know that he was lying when he made them. Almost everyone knew that his promises were made to get the idiots’ votes, and never expected him to follow through. That’s why there’s no real disillusionment and his approval ratings are still in the sixties. His supporters never really cared about the promises which he broke; his real agenda was obvious to anyone who cared enough to check.

JohnJ on March 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM

You get what you vote for!

You vote for the affirmative action candidate, you get the affirmative action candidate.

This is what happens when you judge people on the color of their skin and not on the content of their character; a Teleprompter of the United States. The moron uses on at press conferences . . . . . I rest my case.

Don’t blame me, I voted for the Democrat in the race: McCain!

…we’ve gotta ask ourselves what McCain would be doing right now…were he president. seriously, the guy who “ran back to washington” to twiddle his thumbs…what would he be doing right now?

ernesto on March 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM

We don’t know, but I seriously doubt tax cheats would be nominated to run the Treasury, there would not be talk of granting mass murdering, Islamofacist, butt-ugly SOB terrorists free access to the United States and rights that citizens afford, the War on Islamofacism would not be ignored, allies would not be snubbed (DVD’s!! not even ones that will play in European DVDs!! Obarky is dumb and cheap!), and hypocrisy would not be the rule (wear a sweater while I keep the White a toasty 75°F, cut back while I host cocktail parties every Wednesday, and I knew nothing of those AIG bonuses).

Bubba Redneck on March 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I used to sneer at folks driving around with Obama Biden bumper stickers. Now I just feel sorry for them.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

-
I have taken to looking at the drivers of those cars. Most, as in 80% or so, have a blank almost worried look on their faces. Also as someone pointed out here a few weeks ago, the Obama stickers seem to be coming off. Very few left in the Philadelphia area…
-

RalphyBoy on March 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Buyer’s remorse.
Do what I do, smile and wear your “W The President” hat.

Bubba Redneck on March 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Now I just feel sorry for them.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Yea, I do too, I just wish one of them wasn’t my son. He won’t even talk about the liar anymore.

scalleywag on March 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Obama 365.

McCain 173.

Of course, when the gop destroyed the economy and country, the choice was clear.

Why you want them back in power to do it again is the definition of insanity.

getalife on March 28, 2009 at 11:02 AM

How spacificly did the GOP destroy the economy? I expect all examples to have no Dem fingerprints.

Ampersand on March 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM

“Does The Economist believe in research any longer?”

Seriously, who would read that rag and more importantly, who pays for it?

Nice commentary Ed.

FireBlogger on March 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM

just another example that liberals, though they think they’re the smartest people around, are uneducated and easily led…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM

he saved the economy.

getalife

please provide evidence and/or any respectable source that backs you up.

Ampersand on March 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Yea, I do too, I just wish one of them wasn’t my son. He won’t even talk about the liar anymore.

scalleywag on March 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I’ve used this as a ‘teaching point’ opportunity for my high school aged kids. They too supported ‘the one’ in this election which dissapointed me greatly, but now they see that this @$$clown for what he and his buddies are all about. Too bad getajob still hasn’t seen the light.
Which remindsme of a line of his/hers/its…”thank you Mr President for…saving the economy teaching my kids to never ever vote democrap”

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Why does anybody listen to what The Economist has to say? Anybody who paid attention last year knew exactly what kind of president Obama would be. Now he’s fulfilling those predictions like he was pre-programmed.

I guess my insights into Obama make me much smarter than any of the starry-eyed naifs at The Economist. Next time they decide to dispense their professional-journalist-grade opinions on the lowly rabble, they should call me first to make sure they don’t screw it up (again).

Cicero43 on March 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM

and those who endorsed Obama because McCain/Palin came across as somehow even more inept than Obama. Also remember with the economist, they’re brits…we can only imagine how Sarah Palin made them feel.

ernesto on March 28, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Given their judgement during the campaign — Obamania everywhere — who gives a flying f*ck what the Brits think about Palin.

ddrintn on March 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I used to sneer at folks driving around with Obama Biden bumper stickers. Now I just feel sorry for them.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

You’re a nice person. I have no sympathy for these morons. I despise them. They never grow up, never face reality and blame others for their stupidity. How do I know this? My relatives are socialists. When I refer to them as “aging Trotskeyites” they become enraged. They are dangerous idiots who consider a food fight to be an intelligent political discussion.

They don’t change. I’ve learned the hard way to save my sympathy for those who are truly deserving.

Cody1991 on March 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM

please let’s not feed the troll today

scalleywag on March 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

WashJeff on March 28, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Ya, well, with the gov Colorado has today don’t look for our state to do much of anything like that now.

boomer on March 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM

scalleywag on March 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Good point, my aplogies.

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Why are they shocked?

When did Obama do anything differently than he is now doing?

Obama is performingly about the same as his non performance in the U.S. Senate

While the Economist might be upset, Obama’s skills (lack therof) were well known to his backers so must have been considered useful failings indeed

At this very moment, Soros is reaping his harvest

entagor on March 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM

A well-blogged classic. I have faith you’ll eventually recognize the non-staffing tactic is to concentrate maximum crisis power in the hands of a few key players and quickly push their radical plan to remake our society. With no potentially disloyal people around, no one is in place to blow the whistle and resign in protest. They don’t want any more exposure by honest Judd Gregg types.

Later hires will just be implementers of a done deal with no stake in the decisions being made.

econavenger on March 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM

You took the words right out of my mouth. Those positions, especially the ones at the Treasury, are not being filled on purpose.

We now have Czar’s running the show.
Tax Day Tea Party Link

Knucklehead on March 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Obama isn’t even who HE thought he was.

t.ferg on March 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Obunghole(borrowed from a poster yesterday)continues to fall victim to your typical white women; gramma, Hillery and now
Pelosi. Then mercifully saved by MSM from Sara Palin.

dragondrop on March 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM

dragondrop on March 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM

There is a good joke in here.

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM

The personality assets that made Obama palatable to publications like The Economist — his placid, non-threatening nature — allowed them to follow in the path of more run-of-the-mill liberal papers and magazines by coming out and endorsing him, as much to let them feel good about themselves due to the historical nature of Obama’s election as to anything he would actually do. And it’s those same personality assets that, even if Obama really didn’t want to move so far to the left, ends up getting him rolled by people like Pelosi and Barney Frank, because he doesn’t like conflict when he has to go it alone and stand up to his key supporters.

Obama will challenge Republicans, because he knows the Democrats will have his back as long as he keeps saying “yes” to all their plans. But he’s never going to challenge the core special interest groups of his own party on anything that doesn’t obviously and immediately hurt his own political hopes (which is why he’s ticked off the far left by not bugging out of Iraq and Afghanistan — there are still a few bridges too far on the left side of the highway for Obama to cross).

The Economist is coming close to that truth, but still is a bit of denial about where Barack and his handlers want to take the country, though at least the editors here understand that the economic plans proposed are fundamentally flawed — most of the other publications criticizing Obama right now aren’t doing it because the plans are flawed, but because the administration is incompetently trying to implement them.

jon1979 on March 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

I’m tired of people acting surprised at how Obama is handling things.

Anyone paying attention during the election knew Obama was going to govern as a far-leftist and anyone who simply read his resume knew that he had no executive experience whatsoever.

This is like a businessman hiring a stupid, hot secretary and feigning surprise when his wife informs him that the hottie doesn’t know how to type. “Really, but I checked her out pretty thoroughly hon.”

29Victor on March 28, 2009 at 12:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM

when he has to go it alone and stand up to his key supporters

That is a trait of a leader, to determine the right path, decide on a course of action, and work towards that goal… the one certainly has not now or ever has shown this trait.

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:33 PM

The Economist more Marx than Smith. This is the article that finally forced me to cancel may subscription:

“A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.”

Examining the Candidates

Based on:

683 emailed surveys to research associates.
142 responses returned
46% Identified themselves as Democrat
10% Identified themselves as Republican
43% Identified themselves as neither (i.e. basically Democrats)

Caper29 on March 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

jon1979 on March 28, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Sorry for got to include the author of that line.

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I live in a small city in the Shenandoah Valley. It is basically a conservative area. Lots of Obama signs in yards and lots of Obama bumper stickers. Every time I go out, I would see at least 2-3 Obama stickers a day. I found that shocking on many levels. I would see them mostly at the grocery store parking lot in the handicapped area, indicating that older folks owned those cars.
Traveling the interstate we used to see lots of them, but now not quite as many. They are still out there, but I have found they are slowly disappearing. Just not as fast as you all have indicated.
One of the “reading” materials that Sarah did not tell Katy C. that she read was “The Economist”. I wonder how Sarah feels about that now. I would love to hear her reaction to that. No one will ask her, though.

BetseyRoss on March 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Obama isn’t even who HE thought he was.

t.ferg on March 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I don’t think Obama knows who he is. He’s been pushed too far, too fast through the political system with no accomplishments. Anyone who read his books can see (whether he wrote them or not) that he is a confused, unformed individual. Anyone over the age of forty who watches him on the campaign trail and now in his pressers sees an adolescent. If this were any position other than POTUS it would be embarrassing. Since he is POTUS it’s terrifying.

Cody1991 on March 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I had lunch with an Obama voter the other day. She said she felt utterly betrayed. She’s really angry and said that many of her fellow Obama voters feel the same way.

Key West Reader on March 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM

You are one lucky person to have found someone to admit they made a mistake by voting for the Boy King. I still can’t find one single person.

Before the election, these folks were all to happy to talk about the greatness of their candidate, never once listening to an opposing view. Now if I broach the subject, their reply is “I don’t have time to listen to the news and keep up with whats going on”.

I truly despise these people lately.

Knucklehead on March 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Cultural Marxist…

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM

This is well done, polemically and analytically, as nearly as I can tell.

Kralizec on March 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM

The Economist needs to fire the people who believe Da Bama is our savior, or lose any chance at being relevant. Same goes for the rest of the ObamaMedia circus.

I’ve done my part in assisting the media. I’ve cancelled all subscriptions to them, and never watch the MSM on television. Nothing says get a clue like a boycott.

DannoJyd on March 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM

just another example that liberals, though they think they’re the smartest people around, are uneducated and easily led…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM

O’bama won 70 percent of the high school dropout vote. No candidate has ever done that before. The closest was Algore with 59% in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Knucklehead on March 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Don’t dispair, I am the only RedMeat/Conservative/Republican in my family, until now. I have recnetly spoke with my blue-as-blue-can-be bro-in-law (whose small business is in the crapper with the economy tanking), a cousin who teaches at a Chicago area university and many others whom I’ve know for a long time as democrats who are showing thier dissapointment and dissaproval of his lack of leadership; letting pelosi, reid and emmanual run away with things. At first they blamed the others for his failures but after some coffee chats where we discussed leadership (like Jon1979) traits, they began to see the one as the petulant, clueless child that he is.

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM

43% Identified themselves as neither (i.e. basically Democrats)

Caper29 on March 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Like when one claims to be and independent (aka Democrat )

Jamson64 on March 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM

It must be terribly frustrating for the greens, hippies, and redistribution folks to know that Barry has the goose that laid the golden egg in his hands is the dog that finally caught the car he was chasing and doesn’t know what the hell to do with it.

I like it this way better.

TheMightyMonarch on March 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Ed,
This is a great post and excellent discussion by all. I’m off to bed, gotta work the beat tonight. Keep the Oakland PD Officers and thier families in your thoughts and prayers today.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/oakland-police-shooting/ci_12013670
This is still the greatest country in the world. I will forever honor her and defend her.
‘night all!

ChicagoBlues on March 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

It walked like a duck, it quacked like a duck, it swam like a duck, and now these people are surprised at the realization that IT’S A FREAKIN’ DUCK!!!

*bangs head against wall*

jimmy2shoes on March 28, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Ya, well, with the gov Colorado has today don’t look for our state to do much of anything like that now.

boomer on March 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Didn’t CO have a good fiscal conservative Gov in the late 90′s? If so, it shows how hard it is to pass fiscally sane laws and that is sad.

WashJeff on March 28, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Still, glad that Obama got elected. This is all the Democrat’s fault and no one can put blame on the Right.

Tim Burton on March 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Actually, from his perspective (radical marxist), his trillions in spending to grow the govt, dragging down the private sector with ZERO tax relief for small businesses, taking oppressive control with green nonsense, and leaving the Treasury Dept empty at a time of crisis/catastrophe is RIGHT ON TRACK.

marklmail on March 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Obama is EXACTLY who I thought he was.

allrsn on March 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

O’bama won 70 percent of the high school dropout vote. No candidate has ever done that before. The closest was Algore with 59% in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2009 at 12:50 PM

interesting, I didn’t know that…but it doesn’t surprise me. look at cities like detroit…where the publik skools leave people uneducated and illiterate…and they keep voting in the democRATs even though the city is a hell-hole…they keep voting for the same old things that have destroyed them..amazing. it goes beyond ignorance, into spiritual darkness…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Thanks, Blacks!

marklmail on March 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Actually, he’s exactly who we thought he was.

John_Locke on March 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I am in the uncomfortable position of feeling smug while I watch my country go to Hell in a handbasket.

Star20 on March 28, 2009 at 1:30 PM

….have started to question him

What would it take to actually question him?

nottakingsides on March 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Very good article, Ed. I’ll be emailing a link to this article to all my family and friends who are still in the 65% approval crowd for Obama.

TeleL on March 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

HE is all of our fault. Every last one of us. This scenario has been a long time coming. Most of my nearly 60 years of life I have heard some people say Rome rotted from within and is was going to happen to us. It has been to most of us some vague concept preached by people who wanted to spoil the party. We have seen greed and profane lifestyles become the norm in this wealthiest of all nations in history. President Obama is the fruit of what we have planted and nurtured over the last half century.

JonRoss on March 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Morons. You could have read any of the number of letters I wrote you last summer and fall, describing in detail the myriad ways he would not or could not do what he said, in economic terms.

When your renewal notice comes, don’t be surprized when I say that you are not the economics-oriented magazine I thought you were.

Vashta.Nerada on March 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Yes, doing what he said in the campaign that gave him a mandate shocked some but he saved the economy.

getalife

Exactly the world view I would expect from someone who lives in a basement apartment with no windows.

Yoop on March 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I tell Obama fans about his school choice policy that got those poor kids thrown out of his daughters’ private school. It’s something everyone can relate to, and speaks to his hypocricy and agenda.

marklmail on March 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

If Obama is not who The Economist thought he was, then the fault lies with The Economist and not Obama. The scales may be falling from their eyes now, but if they had done their jobs a few months ago, it wouldn’t be necessary at all.

There will still be another set of scales after these have fallen — the ones obscuring Bush’s attempts to head off this entire fiasco.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Thanks, Blacks!

marklmail on March 28, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Can’t blame it all on “Blacks”. It also took a lot of Whites, Yellows and Reds to push us over the edge.

JonRoss on March 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM

From 1980 to 2007 I was a subscriber to the Economist and learnt and I enjoyed the magazine very much, however over the later period I was finding the writing moving away from what I could see and then they did an article trying to paint Jihadism in the same light as the Anarchists of the later 1800 and early 1900′s. I read that articel twice in growing anger, I did not renew my subscription. When I saw them endorsing what I could see was a useless Marxist I was not surprised. In that article they cannot hide their left leaning views by blaming Republicans when only Pelosi and co were at fault.

The Economist is a good example of what the Media has become, how on earth can it even call itself the Economist is beyond me as it seems to believe in hope and change rather than hard cold facts and figures.

TrueBrit on March 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Yes, doing what he said in the campaign that gave him a mandate shocked some but he saved the economy.

getalife on March 28, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Obama Waters Franks, LLC was what destroyed the economy. Obama being totally silent for a few days is what has permitted the recent improvement. It is too early to know whether this will be a recovery — that will depend on how long Obama’s laryngitis recovery takes. If it takes four years, we’ve got a good chance, but anything less…

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Like several others in this thread, I’ve been a subscriber to the Economist for a while (started in the mid-90′s-ish, during my college days).

I’ve found it to be a great resource to find what’s going on EVERYWHERE, even the most obscure places. Read it for six months, and you’ll know what’s going on in the Maldives, Madagascar, Tonga, Anguilla, Moldova, and Burkina Faso.

I have appreciated their position on many things over the years: anti-Chavez; stridently opposed to what Putin and his minions are doing to Russia; Mugabe’s antics, etc.

However, I echo the others. They’ve turned decidedly left over the years. They endorsed Kerry for Pres. (in the MIDDLE of a war, no less), they were against the calls for Kofi Annan’s resignation back in the day, and the constant pounding of the “man-made global warming” garbage has become tiresome.

Did they hire staff from the BBC? The Guardian? I’m not sure. I used to read it cover to cover, but now I get through it much more quickly these days.

I appreciate the knowledge I’ve obtained about everything from elections in El Salvador to Japanese politics, and their overall support of free markets, but there may be a point in the near future where I won’t want to renew my $120/year subscription.

Tak_Bulgogi on March 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM

I still think getalife is Michelle Malkin masquerading as a moonbat. No one is this dense.

You know what getalife? That vote was closer than you think, whatever the electoral votes said. It was just a few million votes apart, about 6% points. Here in Indiana Obama won the electoral votes because Barr was on the ticket and that split the conservative vote. Obama did not even get a real majority. But this is a winner takes all system, so he got the electoral votes.

I doubt if he could do that now. Since Obama became President the unemployment rate is going up and the folks in Gary who had the most to do with electing him have not got their free money yet. Heartbreak all around.

Terrye on March 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Another outstanding analysis, Ed.

Bob's Kid on March 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM

I still think getalife is Michelle Malkin masquerading as a moonbat. No one is this dense.

Oh, how I log for an “ignore” button. That one’s nonsense would be first on my list to ignore.

Bob's Kid on March 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM

and Obama has not saved the economy. For one thing a recession is not a near death experience, the economy is quite capable of saving itself given the opportunity. For another things are not better than they were, they are worse.

In fact my guess is that whatever the morons at The Economist or Obamabots like getalife here want to admit, the truth is Obama would be doing very well to see the same kind of numbers on the economy that Bush did for most of his tenure. Maybe the Republicans will win in 2010 and save the economy from Obama.

Terrye on March 28, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I guess it’s really too soon to say sock puppet is the absolute worst president in history….but I’ll say it anyway because that’s where this dead fish is going to land and rot.

He’s the worst president EVER. He’s even a worse American than he is president. Someone buy him a ticket out of here PLEASE.

Spiritk9 on March 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Terrye on March 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM

And it’s looking like that free money isn’t gonna come, ever. Possibly we under 250K folks are going to be the ones to support o’s agenda. Going to pay for universal health care environmental initiatives right along side of the top 5% taxpayers. Well, maybe not as that top 5% can afford to leave the country.

jeanie on March 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3