| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
When You've Lost Buffett, You've Lost the Country
NBC won't tell you, but I will. Obama just turned the corner on the economy, and I don't mean in a good way.
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.
The coverage of his interview on CNBC is remarkably devoid of long quotes, and if you saw the interview, you'd know why--Buffett was singing a funeral dirge, predicting high double digit unemployment, but more importantly being distinctly, if mildly critical of the Obama administration's response to the crisis.
The media coverage is remarkable consistent--only reporting the most mild criticism and contrasting it with Obama administration official's arguments for patience as well as the inevitable point that the president is still popular.
Well, they have to say something, don't they? Buffett is actually a latecomer to the party, but he's nevertheless a bellwether. His criticism, like Walter Cronkites criticism of the Vietnam war, is a sign that Obama's policy, and its arguments, have failed.
Just as important; the issue has turned from who is to blame for the situation (why Bush of course!) to who is to blame for not solving it.
What we're seeing her is the establishment of a media meme, not unlike the infamous 13 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The effect built over several months, but it marked the moment when the media turned from a largely suppportive-slash-timidly critical role, to the recently concluded pogrom against Bush. Notably, that controversy was also a matter of important players (the CIA) breaking ranks.
Think I'm overstating the case? Consider that as the consensus about our economic prospects are congealing, the media is getting comfortably quoting the most extreme doomsayers. Nouriel Roubini vaulted to prominence by predicting the current economic climate, and is currently predicting a 36 month recession.
The real question here is what the Obama administration will do? Clearly their hope was to push through a far-left political agenda under cover of a massive economic crisis (which incidentally, they screamed bloody murder about after 9/11, when they thought Republicans were doing the same...). The economy would recover by the end of the year, or early 2010 at the latest, leaving them well-positioned for the mid-term elections.
There are signs that Obama has an escape hatch in place.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is practically alone on the job, working night and day to cope with the worst economic downturn in decades.
Of the 15 key Treasury Department positions that require Senate confirmation, only one has been filled. Stuart Levey, a leftover from the previous administration, who as under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, is not central to the crisis management however.
Its more than a little odd that Geithner has no staff when the President has comfortable majorities in Congress, unless of course Obama is setting up a scapegoat. Its hard to imagine a better one--already reviled as a tax dodger, with no political constituency to back him up, he's a perfect patsy.
That's hardly going to be enough though. Obama is faced with an policy U-turn more drastic that Clinton's embrace of welfare reform in the nineties. His assets are a compliant state media who could spin tax cuts for the rich for their Messiah, but the liberal-left base would not be fooled. Destruction of the free market system is a religious tenet. Obama would be creating serious political problems for himself and the party.
The decision requires someone who can be brutally honest with themselves about political realities. Bill Clinton was well-suited to his similar dilemma, coming from a mixed political environment where success was based on that skill. Obama's political education couldn't have been more different. He's been groomed for success by mentors since his earliest days at Columbia. His decisions have always been about how to avoid choosing any evil by voting present, disqualifying his opponents and message control. In all likelihood, Barack Obama has never had to make a real choice.
My guess is that he'll go with what he knows, which will be to try to disqualify his critics and avoid having to change anything in his program, hoping that the predictions are off-base.
It truly is a historic presidency--no one has ever raised the draw bridge within the first 100 days.


Comments
Is that the same interview
where Buffett said:
And, yes, as you say, he did say we need a commander in chief - and he also made it clear that Obama is that man. The PROBLEM is the rabble down below:
I'm calling "Shenanigans", Mick.
Buffett was singing a funeral dirge, predicting high double digit unemployment, but more importantly being distinctly, if mildly critical of the Obama administration's response to the crisis.
Mick, how about providing some long, in context quotes from the Buffett interview that back up your assesment, similar to what NRN helpfully provided.
Anyone who wants to see video of the Buffett interview can head over to the Obama Attack Squad that is The Huffington Post. That's where I saw it this morning. That sourcing alone should tell you Buffett took a positive perspective for, not anti, Obama.
And it is curious that very few Democrats are raising a stink about Republicans holding up Treasury Department appointments. My guess would be that indicates that they are 100% sold on the direction they have chosen, and need no other opinions at this point. Also, more voices selling the plan just provides a target rich environment for people like Mick that like to cut out quotes. Obama knows that he alone can sell this, and if he can't, a thousand Under Secretary cheerleaders wouldn't have helped.
But I thought the media was leftwing?
And we weren't supposed to trust them?
when one republican senator
puts a hold on the treasury appointments, and you then blame the democrats.
yup. you've jumped the shark.
Spinning Uselessly
Someone wanted a longer quote. Sure--why not?
BUFFETT:And I've never seen the consumer or the Americans just generally more fearful than this. And they're also confused. And you can get fearful very quickly, but you don't get confident, you know, in five minutes. You can get fearful in five minutes, but you won't get confident for some time. And government is going to play an enormous factor in how fast it comes back. And if you're confused and fearful, you don't get over being fearful till you aren't confused. I mean, the message has to be very, very clear as to what government will be doing. And I think we've had--and it's the nature of the political process, somewhat, but we've had muddled messages, and the American public does not know what--they feel that they don't know what's going on and their reaction, then, is to absolutely pull back.
BECKY: So there've been a lot of fingers of blame that have pointed in a lot of different directions. But you're saying the message from Washington has been confused or...
BUFFETT: Well, I think it's the nature of things.
As I said, Buffett is late to the party on this, but the fact that he's even this mildly critical adds fuel to the fire. The defenders of the faith notwithstanding, my point is incontrovertible--Obama has lost the initiative. I mean think about this--"well be fine in FIVE YEARS..." My God fellas, That the bloody great depression right there, and if a Republican president had said this, you'd be loading your shotguns.
Democrats are earmarking while the country burns. Y'all were fools for voting for the Messiah.
A 3 hour interview, and that's the best you've got?
It was a 3 hour interview, and that little episode is the best you can find to prove your "point"? Lame. Even before you consider the fact that it could be the Republicans muddling the message that he is complaining about.
Mick Stockinger, So what
Mick Stockinger,
So what should we do? We have seen years of deficits and debt, a trillion dollars gone to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan a mess, and Iran as the leader in the Middle East as we took away their opponent (Iraq), our middle class jobs going overseas, cities and states going broke, a financial crisis, an automotive crisis, a housing crisis, the neglect of the infrastructure, the attack on science for 8 years, laissez-faire, the tax cuts was for the here and now and all spent, the tax cuts were borrowed money from other countries, no energy plan, and no investments on our future.
It will take years to recover as their is no short term solution to anything. Obama is overwhelmed and seems to be lost, but McCain and the republicans had no answer either.
The Bush years were like the roaring twenties for the rich and now we have to pay the price.
I wish bush had.
the stock market kept on tanking whenever he said "everything's fine".
you do watch it, right??"?
Thanks for the quote.
I'm not sure if Buffett saying that confusion inherent in the political process equates to Obama losing the initiative on the economy. Sounds to me like Buffett is going out of his way NOT to assign any blame to either side of the aisle.
If we even see Dow 10,000 in five years everybody, with the exception of the wing nuts, will see that timetable as a stunning recovery. By my calculations, we can not expect Dow 14,000 again until after the 2016 elections. That's all based on the recovery starting this week. And the markets up 6% in one day is pretty encouraging.
Earmarks averaged 3000 when Newt took over. He and Hastert raised that number to 15,000 on average per year. The Dems took over and reduced that by 25-40% depending on whose numbers you believe.
And I'm not sure why you guys want to eliminate earmarks now. Eliminating them saves exactly zero dollars for tax payers, and gives ALL spending decisions, outside of military contracts, to Obama and the executive branch. McCain won't tell you because he thinks you're stupid. But once the budget is approved, and the money is appropriated, it is spent, my friends. And there's no way to "unspend" it.
Earmarks or no, each department gets to spend every cent appropriated as their yearly budget. Earmarks don't add a penny to any department's budget , they just direct a portion of the cash to Congress specified priorities. The President has no line item veto. So he must approve the bill with earmarks, which is the equivalent of him personally directing the executive branch to fund a project. Absent earmarks, the President and his men get to make all those funding decisions with no input at all from Congress, or at least from the other side of the aisle.
Earmark debates are opium to keep the sheeple in their stupor where they don't ask too many questions. Legislators on both sides are well aware its all a big show signifying nothing. And McCain tried to sell that pile of manure everyday on the stump. Pitiful but typical.
art, NO, the market up 6% in one day is a BEAR RALLY.
if it goes up 20% in the next two weeks, it's stilla bear rally.
We are still in a worldwide depression, and the fundamentals are still awful.
I'm not popping champagne corks yet.
Yesterday was just "an encouraging sign", not proof we are on the way back up.
Just like my wife bringing me a cup of coffee this morning while I shaved doesn't mean were gonna have sex tonight. But it IS an encouraging sign.
bear rallies are not an encouraging sign.
please tell me you read bonddad and calculated risk?
Buffett calls for command economy
Let's reverse the spin. My reading is that Buffett has embraced Obama's socialism by calling for a command economy with Obama as commander-guy.
Is that any less ridiculous than Mick's ham-fisted cherry picking?