Democrats took a drubbing yesterday in two key governor's races in states which President Obama won just one year ago... and yet Press Secretary Gibbs said the President was "not watching the returns."
Instead, top advisor Axelrod haughtily sniffed to CNN that "Obama is more likely to watch Tuesday night's Chicago Bulls game."
(Question: Is Obama watching basketball rather than devastating election returns akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned?)
A perfect symbolism of the whole problem for Democrats these days: the President isn't listening to the American people. Or apparently watching, either.
Instead, on fiscal matters, Obama holes up with sycophant economists Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Christina Romer, an oddball clutch of ivory-tower elites who seem to possess little heartfelt grasp of this economy's devastating effect on most Americans.
Meanwhile, this trio's Wall Street friends, who caused the near-cataclysmic collapse of the U.S. economy, get richer and richer while the rest of America endures crippling economic hardship.
On all policy matters, Obama spends as much (if not more) time plotting strategy, rather than substance, with political flak David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, his two closest advisors.
When not isolated Bush-style in the White House, President Obama relaxes by playing golf or basketball with his boys-only inner circle, or dining out in style with the First Lady.
(Don't you wish, just once, that President Obama would jog Clinton-style through D.C. streets, stopping at MacDonalds to filch some fries while merrily chatting up surprised onlookers? But I digress... )
If this past summer, Obama had turned on CNN, MSNBC, or, for that matter, Fox News, he would have seen and heard the boiling anger and fear everyday Americans, both liberal and conservative, understandably feel over spiraling unemployment and foreclosure rates across the country.
But instead, Mr. Obama watched and played basketball with his buddies. He played golf on pricey, private courses, and painted the town red with his wife. Republican red, it turns out.
The American people voted one year ago for "Change We Can Believe In." Americans in two states last night sent an exasperated message that the current economy is not the change they voted for when they placed their trust in him.
I hope that today, the President turns off TV sports, and puts away the golf clubs and basketball shoes.
I hope that, instead, he turns on dreaded Fox News, and listens and watches to vivid details of why Americans in Virginia and New Jersey voted against the candidates he stood up for.
I hope he internalizes their urgent message of anguish and anger. Because if he doesn't, the 2010 mid-term Congressional elections will be an even bigger night of Republican victories at the ballot box.
(Photo taken in D.C. on October 8, 2009, a Thursday, of President Obama playing basketball with aides and members of Congress: Pete Souza/Getty Images)
Comments
Americans always blame whichever party currently occupies the White House and/or holds a congressional majority for the economy and most other problems–no matter where the problems originated. The financial collapse didn’t happen on Obama’s watch, and the recession started nearly two years before he took office. Bush handed off those problems, along with a huge budget deficit (after starting his presidency with the big budget surplus Clinton left him).
And it’s not as though Obama hasn’t been busy addressing the nation’s economic woes. Reportedly, the stimulus package, for all its faults, is working. And just this week we learned that the economy posted a growth quarter, effectively ending the recession (although recovery will take much longer). Obama made it clear that neither he nor anyone else would be able to solve such massive problems quickly, but he made a start and he’s making progress. Americans may want quick results, but it’s an unrealistic expectation that Obama never promised to fulfill.
Concerning last night’s election returns, I don’t think two governor’s races add up to “devastating” results, no matter what the pundits try to spin. Democrats won in other local (and national) races around the country, and we won’t really get a sense of how the electorate is feeling until the congressional mid-term elections in 2010. Frankly, most people don’t cast their vote for governor on the basis of national politics.
And as for Obama watching basketball instead of election returns (if, indeed, he did what his aide speculated he would do), I think he’s entitled. He had already stumped for the Democratic candidates in both New Jersey and Virginia, and once the voting started yesterday there was nothing more he could do to persuade or influence voters in those states. I’m sure he had people updating him on those and other elections throughout the day and into the evening–he doesn’t really have to watch the returns on TV to get that kind of information. Personally, I would rather have the president spend time relaxing–on the rare occasions when he can carve out a little free time from his more-than-busy schedule–so that he is ready to deal effectively with the critical issues that cross his desk each day, rather than spend hours watching and worrying about election returns he can’t change.
Oh puh-leeeze. In CA Garamendi (D) ran a progressive platform and defeated Harmer (R) by double digits. NY’s 23rd Palin, Limbaugh, Tea Party candidate Hoffman lost. Let me repeat that for you, LOST. The moderate Democrat Owens, handily won what had been a Republican stronghold for over a century! Congress gained Democrats. Now what is more impressive? — a couple of governorships in states that flip flop governor parties every several years (keep in mind, all polling indicates this WAS NOT a referendum of some sort on Obama’s presidency thus far, it was local politics), or a national congressional change that hasn’t occurred since Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency???
Yes the president was dealt a bad hand. There is no question the economy was in horrible shape when he took office, but one could say the same thing for Bush.
Either way Obama was voted in because the country is in critical condition financially. We are seeing change, but it’s negative change. Unemployment is still on the rise and foreclosures are starting to creep into new territories, fixed rate mortgages.
The change Americans voted for was to remove the intimacy between Wall Street and the White House. But as it stands now, it’s business as usual.
Maybe we all need to vote libertarian, green party, or for other 3rd party candidates, then we can send a clear message. Because currently the DC elite still aren’t hearing us, or they are just refusing to listen.
I understand the argument that Obama needs to engage and empathize more with voters, but I’m not sure I agree. Obama’s only human and, like all of us, can only do so much. We hired him to tackle, and hopefully solve, some problems that are threatening to cripple the nation and the world, not to be Nanny in Chief. I’m sure liberals everywhere would FEEL better if Obama was working at, well, making them feel better. Personally, I’d rather have him working on solutions to those problems I mentioned.
During his campaign and the early days of his presidency, Obama gave the country more hope and created more optimism than I thought possible. (Except among Americans who hated him on principle or on sight.) The old political adage is that “we campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” The actual work and business of governing is always much less exciting and stimulating than the promise of what may come. Personally, I’d rather have Obama less engaged with voters right now and more engaged with the problems that could still overwhelm us if solutions aren’t found and implemented soon.
I’m not trying to be an Obama apologist here. I don’t think the guy walks on water, and I agree he has made some missteps and will probably make more. But I don’t think rushing to judgment on his presidency when he’s only 10 months in, or expecting him to literally be all things to all people is either realistic or the best course.
Nothing in the world is more fickle or less patient than the American electorate. They need to look for comfort elsewhere and let the man do his job. If the economy is back on track in 2012, unemployment rates are low, and we’re seeing significant progress on clean energy and some of the other issues at the top of Obama’s priority list, the same people who are criticizing him now will be calling him a political messiah. And in my opinion, both claims are off the mark.
As for The Lonely Moderate’s point that economic conditions are getting worse instead of better, that’s actually a mixed bag. Yes, unemployment and foreclosures are still big problems, but you can’t turn a battleship on a dime and we can’t expect Obama to reverse complex problems of that magnitude in just a few months. Obama said as much when he was elected, so I don’t think we should fault him now for the truth of his predictions.
Maybe the White House should be less engaged with Wall Street. I don’t know. I don’t think anyone really knows. We’ve never had an economic situation quite like this before. And if Wall Street is part of the problem, then solving the problem is likely to require more engagement there, not less. Keep in mind, however, that the federal government does not control private industry and investment, nor would we want that. So it’s probably inevitable that some things are going to continue to happen on Wall Street that no one is crazy about (except those who benefit directly). But that’s a game we don’t run.
Larry,
I am not saying that the government should run Wall Street. By no means do I feel that way. But I also feel that by no means should Wall Street run the government.
This is known as balance or moderation. No one side should control the other. But that is not the case. Between the deregulation laws that passed years ago, the unchecked speculative trading of oil, the bank bailouts, and using TARP money to pay executive bonuses(which is by all accounts misappropriations of federal funds) Wall Street is clearly in control of at least 2 branches of government. Our puppet president is by no means immune to this influence.
I honestly like Obama. On the surface he is bright and appears to be a genuinely good person. But you have to question who he is representing when you start looking a little deeper. The majority of the American people were against the bank bailouts, yet they still went through.
That was something like over 1 trillion dollars that went to a bunch of losers that will probably fail anyway. Here is a great example CIT filing for bankruptcy this week. What a colossal waste of tax payer’s hard earned dollars.
Here is a different idea. The avg American family contains about 3 people. There are about 300 mil Americans. Do the math. Thats about $10K/family. If they had released $10K/family many people who defaulted may have kept their homes. Others would have bought big screen tvs. Others would have paid off debt. And a few fiscally conservative relatively solvent people would have put that money into savings. The net result, money would pour back in to the banking system and GDP would increase, thus getting us out of the mess. Instead our endentured servants of corporate America, Congress and the White House, gave a handout to their masters.
Maybe it’s time for a new party. Forget the tea baggers, they are just Obama hating conservatives. Maybe we need the Pitchfork and Torch Party. Maybe then they will realize how angry the American people are and we will finally be heard.
Good Morning…
Words like the earths temperature increase – or global warming are generally too scientific to participate in – but, earthquakes and mass death cannot be another disregarded statistic. Hundreds of thousads are dead and homeless
[b]Please offer financial or volunteer assistance to Chile & Haiti[/b]
http://www.google.com/relief/haitiearthquake/