Free Markets, Free People


The Leadership Gap (update)

I continue to be amazed that seemingly smart people are just suddenly figuring this out. “Blinders” doesn’t begin to describe what it must have taken to ignore Obama’s lack of experience and to hope the fact that he’d never displayed a scintilla of leadership in anything he’d ever done would somehow rectify itself prior to his assumption of office.

The latest to drop the blinders is the Economist, which heartily endorsed Obama’s election:

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.

You can still read read the disbelief in that paragraph. Question for the Economist – what leadership position of any importance has the man ever held that would indicate he had what it took to lead as President?

And why didn’t you explore that question, its answer and ramifications before you jumped on the Hope and Change bandwagon?

Journalism 101.

UPDATE: Ed Morrisey at Hot Air has thoughts on the article as well.

 

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

22 Responses to The Leadership Gap (update)

  • Wouldn’t that be the Fabulous Hope’n'Change Bus Tour and Comedy Show…

    Wonder how long till President Obama throws the press under the bus.

  • Many of his strongest supporters…have started to question him

    Well, Erb will never question the Dear Leader.

  • Obama’s doing fine, at least according to all the accounts I see, and no, I can’t link to any of them, so please stop asking that. My accounts come from BOTH the faculty lounge and the local coffee shop, though, so I have multiple sources of confirmation that Obama is doing all the right things and prosperity is just around the corner.

    Well, as long as you dense righties quit tearing him down, and get in line with his programs, which are all wonderful. They will lead us to a new age of enlightenment, and they are not either socialist, so stop saying that! We need universal healthcare, and it ought to be a right in any civilized society. Our European friends and our Canadian friends figured this out long ago, and they have blissful, wonderful healthcare systems in which no one is ever denied healthcare. And don’t start up with the people who come over the border from Canada to get care in the US, you hear me, just don’t start! They are just Canadian varieties of you dense righties, always expecting to “jump the line” and get their healthcare right away instead of waiting six or eight months like everyone else.

    Besides, Obama has to exert a firm hand on the market, because markets don’t adjust themselves. They just don’t. They don’t, they don’t, they don’t! I have a PhD, and I can assure you they don’t, and I have blog posts with word counts so high they rival federal budget numbers that explain why every classical economist is wrong, and only we wise leftists really understand the economy. Only we factor in time lags and imperfect information and lots of other concepts which demonstrate unequivocally that wise leftists need to be running everything.

    I think you’re all realizing just how wrong you were, and you don’t know what to do. Your ideas are being brushed aside, as is completely appropriate given how stupid they are. But things shift and the pendulum comes back, and since I’ve said that I’ll be back no matter how things turn out to tell you how I predicted it.

  • It seems he can maintain that cool, calm, unruffled air for the same reason the village idiot can–neither of them know what the h*ll is going on around them.

    • I post facts and analysis, and all you dense righties do it come back with insults. It just shows that you know you’re wrong and you don’t know how to respond to my brilliance and godlike post-modern powers of political science.

      At least I think you were insulting me. You were talking about me with that “village idiot” thing, right?

  • Here’s another pundit coming out of the Obama trance: Gail Collins, who last November was calling for Bush to ignore the Constitution and step down early so the Obama team could start their administration immediately. Now she is openly ridiculing Obama:

    Barack Obama — Kinda boring. Did you see the news conference? Same thing over and over again. Not that we mind. In these troubled times, we like stability. Thank God we didn’t elect somebody who was all charisma and exciting speeches….

    In summary, there appear to be only two constants in our ever-changing world. One is that Barack Obama is going to be on television every day forever. No venue is too strange. Soon, he’ll be on “Dancing With the Stars” (“And now, doing the Health Care, Energy and Education tango …”) or delivering the weather report. (“Here we see a wave of systemic change, moving across the nation …”)…

  • I love Collins’s dig, “Barack Obama is going to be on television every day forever.”

    I was wondering whether all his campaigning to support his budget and reawaken support would work. The Rasmussen poll has not budged. He’s still at a low. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

  • I recall how aghast I was as I read The Economist’s endorsement.  I believe their rationale was “he’s earned it by having a smashing campaign.”  The abandonment of reason in the face of razzle-dazzle threw me.  The end of my subscription coincided with that particular issue.  I couldn’t bring myself to re-up.

    • Ronnie, you may inspire me…I have been thinking about ending my subscription as well.

    • I subscribed all through the eighties, but the double-barrel endorsement of Clinton and shilling for HillaryCare made their direction clear. They seem to have abandoned their libertarian roots, and started drawing their writers from the same Euro-elites as the government. I have not subscribed in over ten years.

      Their science writing is still the best in any non-science publication (I still see it on the web). And I recently got a “your airline miles are expiring – redeem them for free magazine subscriptions” notice. The only two on the list that looked marginally worthwhile, given the horrible state of print magazines and newspapers, were WSJ and the Economist. So I took them both. We’ll see if they are worth the time to read these days.

      It’s also interesting that I got both of these rather expensive publications for free. Fifteen years ago I spent about $250 a year for them. How the mightly have fallen.

  • There seems to be some buyer’s remorse setting in among the less skeptical voters.  If you want to know if a politician is lying, watch him.  If his lips are moving, he’s probably spinning something.  This election a perfect example of why you should question the candidate and validate his words with his deeds.  If a presidential candidate has no record, vote for someone else.

    No Obama supporter was able to explain why Obama was qualified to be president.  Now we know.  He’s not.

    • That never mattered to any Obama supporter for even a second. It was enough that he was Black, he was Brilliant (at least that’s what everyone said), and he wasn’t  an EEEVIL Rethuglican.  Absolutely no other thought whatsoever went into that decision.

  • McQ – … why didn’t you explore that question, its answer and ramifications before you jumped on the Hope and Change bandwagon?

    The answer is contained within the Economist quote cited:

    Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency

    It seems obvious to me that the editors at The Economist, like many other people, were eaten up with BDS.  TAO offered himself as the anti-Bush.  To borrow from popular lingo, they had a Bush fever, and TAO was the cure.
    I don’t expect them (or anybody else) to realize that Bush’s presidency was not “awful”, but at least they may be on the way to understanding that pithy old expression “out of the frying pan and into the fire”.

  • The kinder, gentler part of me (hey, stop laughing!)  feels kinda sorry for these people.  The election of the first black President is a momentous thing, and it’s been spoiled by the fact the guy is an unmitigated disaster.  That’s gotta hurt. 

    Then I remember how their good intentions are asphalt on the Iblis Interstate and I go back to wanting to throw things at them.  Pointy things.  Hard.

  • [Shock] Now they tell us! The Clown™ was unprepared to be President? The Clown™ was unqualified to be President? My response? NO S-H-I-T, Sherlock!

    My question: how long before the real stupid liberals (the Katie Courics, for instance) start making foul comments about The Clown™ and His Clownettes™?

    If (and I doubt it will happen) that were to occur, I will be shocked. But I wouldn’t take any bets on it happening as long as the media is run by lobotomized liberals (which itself is a double wordy).

  • Without lowering my vocabulary to the levels of those who profess to be intelligent, I reply to your post.  I know that to many of us reading this post it seems that the majority aren’t very smart for voting in the O to begin with.  However, I do believe that many are pacified and even impressed by one who can articulate a stump speech in a manner that won’t remind them of someone who has previously been in office doing the dirty work of running a country.  While no one is perfect…in fact, we all have to eat, sleep, etc…the basic needs are all the same…in order to run a country, true leadership is required and affiliations with a gaggle of irresponsible people is usually not the best way to live your “Presidential” lifestyle.   However, when people stop listening to what they want to hear and actually see the matrix they live in, realizing they must read and research to get a tidbit of the truth behind the curtain, there may be mass panic as the truth is a lot harder to swallow than the imaginary world many live in.  I am thrilled that many are commenting here who have realized the truth for some time now.  It is a bit refreshing.  I am adding your site as a link on my site at http://issuesoncall.blogspot.com.  Thanks for the info.