Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on November 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Perhaps Barack Obama should have waited a day or so to hold a post-midterm press conference, or at least a few more hours to prepare for one. The press actually played for keeps after watching the historic rebuke delivered by voters the previous day; no one asked what Obama found the most enchanting about the experience. Anyone could have predicted that at least one reporter would ask whether Obama considered the results a rejection of his economic policies — polling showed the economy and jobs at the top of the list of issues for midterm voters — and presumably the White House prepared for it.
Well, if they did, they didn’t do nearly enough prep work (transcript by Andrew Malcolm):
Q: Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Savannah, I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices.
Er, what? If his policies had worked — in other words, actually created the environment for economic growth and job creation — then yes, people would have confidence in them. Therefore, why don’t people have confidence in these policies? Because they haven’t worked, QED. Obama didn’t have an answer; the best he can offer is a platitude of such obvious circularity that only the media seemed to buy it.
But are people being unfair? Let’s recall the original economic projection from the Obama White House on unemployment and economic stimulus, promulgated by Christine Romer and her team in January 2009. With a $775 billion stimulus structured mainly in public works and some tax breaks, the Obama administration estimated that joblessness would peak in 2009 Q3 at 8%. Without Porkulus, it would peak at 9% and plateau through 2010 Q3. What actually happened?
Now economists predict only a 2.4% GDP growth rate in 2011, meaning we’ll be above 9% unemployment until at least 2012 Q1, when Obama predicted we’d be below 7% as a worst-case scenario. And he wonders why people don’t have confidence in his policies?
Actually, scratch that. The media wonders. Obama shows that he understands it exactly.
Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!
Related Posts:
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: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2