This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Mort Zuckerman: America's Love Affair With Obama Is Over
Obama's biggest fan-turned-critic is back, this time with a gloating epitaph to what has been a disastrous two years for the US economy, which has so far been prevented from collapsing, thanks to the trade-off which is making Wall Street richer than ever, the middle-classes poorer in real terms than ever, and letting the country to plunge to a record level of indebtedness, which merely guarantees that when the inevitable day of reckoning comes it will be that much worse.
From the US News and World report.
Mort Zuckerman: America's Love Affair With Obama Is Over: The administration is running out of time to lower unemployment and fix the economy
It was the worst of times for the Democrats and the best of times for
the Republicans—almost. The GOP did not succeed in capturing the
Senate, or dethroning the Democratic leader, but with an energy boost
from the Tea Party movement it certainly reflected the anger and dismay
of voters who see their country foundering at home and abroad.
The results represent a sharp rebuke to President Obama, who
interpreted his 2008 "vote for change" as a mandate for changing
everything and all at once. Right from the start, he got his priorities
badly wrong, sacrificing the need to help create jobs in favor of his
determination to pass Obamacare. It was the state of the economy that
demanded genius and concentration, and it just did not get it. The
president will now have to respond to public anger, not with anger
management and, not, please God, with still more rhetoric. The unusually
revealing exit polls spell it all out—how he re-energized the Republican Party, lost the independent center, and failed to overcome the widespread sense that the country is heading in the wrong direction.
The exit polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election
Pool show that the economy was the dominant issue, rated at 62 percent,
while healthcare
was only at 18 percent. Minority voters remained loyal (9 in 10 blacks
and 2 in 3 among Hispanics), but everywhere else Obama was deserted.
Independents and women fled the Democrats;
among white women, no less than 57 percent chose the GOP. There are
some surprises for the conventional wisdom. The case for creating more
jobs by government spending was rated within a hair's breadth of
reducing the deficit
(37 percent to 39 percent) and opinion was evenly divided (33 to 33) on
whether the stimulus had hurt or helped the economy. Voters registered
their disapproval of Democratic control of Congress and of what the
White House promised but failed to deliver. It is apparent that Obama
didn't seem to have understood the problems of the average American.
He came across as a young man in a grown-up's game—impressive but not
presidential. A politician but not a leader, managing American policy
at home and American power abroad with disturbing amateurishness.
Indeed, there was a growing perception of the inability to run the
machinery of government and to find the right people to manage it. A man
who was once seen as a talented and even charismatic rhetorician is now
seen as lacking real experience or even the ability to stop America's
decline. "Yes we can," he once said, but now America asks, "Can he?"
The last two years have exposed to the public the risk that came with
voting an inexperienced politician into office at a time when there was
a crisis in America's economy, as the nation contended with a financial
freeze, a painful recession, and two wars. The Democrats were simply
not aggressive enough or focused enough in confronting the profound
economic crisis represented by millions of ordinary Americans whose main
concern was the lack of jobs.
Jobs have long represented the stairway to upward mobility in
America, and the anxiety over joblessness became the dominant concern at
a time when financial security based on home equity and pensions was
dramatically eroding. No great speech is going to change the fundamental
fact that millions of people are either jobless or underemployed at a
time when only a quarter of the American population describes the job
market as good.
Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do
what the Clintons couldn't? His rush to do it sparked a broad resistance
that has only spread since the bill was passed. The public sensed that
healthcare was a victory for Obama, and maybe for the Democrats, but not
for the country—and contrary to Democratic hopes, public support for
the measure has continued to drop to as low as 34 percent in some polls.
A significant majority, some 58 percent, now wish to repeal the entire
bill, according to likely voters questioned in a late October poll by
Rasmussen.
As political analyst Charlie Cook put it: "Every month, every week,
every day that Washington seemed focused on healthcare instead of the
economy frightened people. It seemed out of touch." It also seemed
tone-deaf to the public's concern with unemployment,
the cost of government, and the sense that America was declining in its
ability to compete in the world. It made Obama's behavior seem as if he
headed the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Congress,
particularly when he allowed the major policies of his presidency to be
written not by his cabinet or the White House staff but by the
congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Then he
accepted the lopsided bills that emerged and the political corruption
that accompanied them—the very processes he condemned during his
campaign and that are so much distrusted by a broad section of the
American public. Eighty-five percent of Americans were concerned about
the cost of healthcare, but the administration focused on extending
coverage.
The open purchasing of votes through the provision of special
exemptions for five states and for unions, and concessions to many of
the special interests in the Democratic Party, especially trial lawyers,
symbolized the corruption of our politics. The 2009 omnibus spending
bill alone contained 8,570 special earmarks like those that had so
enraged the American public in the past. When lawmakers had no time to
even read the bills, it gave the impression that what was important was
passing anything, no matter how ineffectual. Obama had promised he would
change "politics as usual." He changed it all right, but for the worse.
The list of his additional programs only provoked the public's distaste
for big government, big spending, and big deficits.
Today the polls indicate that the president has reached a point where
a majority of Americans have no confidence, or just some, that he will
make the right decisions for the country. There isn't a single critical
problem on which the president has a positive rating. It didn't help
when he kept on and on asserting that he had inherited a terrible
situation from the Bush administration. Yes, enough, and sir, the
country elected you to solve problems, not to complain about them.
It did not help that the administration had completely lost the
support of the business community, where virtually no one has a good
word to say about the administration and where there is no go-to,
high-level businessman in Obama's inner circle. The result was to make
corporate America lose even more confidence in making investment
decisions.
Obama's job approval rating has fallen well below 50 percent overall,
but the numbers are lower among whites and even lower among
working-class whites, whose revolt may be the defining characteristic of
2010 (counting even more than the rise of the mostly white and affluent
Tea Party movement). These were the famous "Reagan Democrats." They
felt that the economy was collapsing around them and that their
president was out of touch. In addition, as those exit polls confirm,
Democrats have for some time been losing vast pieces of their core
constituencies among women, independents, college graduates, and the
elderly.
As for the public's hope for bipartisanship, Obama's partisan
approach was underlined by putting forth one of the most liberal budget
programs in decades. This failure was captured most recently in a New York Times front-page
story that reported that for the first 18 months of his presidency,
Obama would not meet one-on-one with the Republican leader in the
Senate, Mitch McConnell. This is not bipartisanship, and inviting a few
Republican congressmen to the White House for the Super Bowl is no
answer.
The public disillusionment has now hardened. In a Quinnipiac poll
this summer, only 28 percent of white voters said they would back Obama
for a second term if the election were held then. Still, those results
do not mean the public will go Republican next time. It depends on the
candidate and the party. A centrist Democrat could win again—someone
like retiring Sen. Evan Bayh, who sets a better course for the party in a
New York Times op-ed. "A good place to start would be tax
reform. Get rates down to make American businesses globally
competitive," he writes. "Simplify the code to reduce compliance costs
and broaden the base. . . . Ban earmarks until the budget is balanced
[and] support a freeze on federal hiring and pay increases."
The love affair with Obama is over. The jobless will be the new swing
voters. Unemployment, underemployment, and collapsing home equity will
be the leading factors in 2012.
The administration hopes the economy will have improved significantly
by then, but it is running out of time and out of the confidence of the
American public.
»
- 15758 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"...the politicians spent money they didn't have..."
Dood, Lucius, do you actually know anything about finance, global finance and econ 101?
I mean, all those debt-financed multi-billionaires out there, peddling that securitized debt.
Now that's spending OPM, and than sticking the rest of us with their bills.
Seriously, are you one of those doofuses who believes the CRA is responsible for the meltdown?
Holy s**t!
No, not just the CRA. Its Federal loan and deposit guarantees in general, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, regulatory capture by the banking and RE lobby, speculative flippers and all perpetuated by the myth that every American has a God given right to own their own home with little or no down. The whole clusterf*** could not have happened without the involvement of many parties (too many to mention in one response). That, in a way, is why the brakes were never applied and the whole thing ended up in a ditch.
"Love Affair with Obama is Over"
Have you followed the mans career, what their was of it, there is no way he should have been elected dogcatcher.
Sarah Palin had far more experience for the office of POTUS than he ever did.(regardless of what you think of her,she did/does).
Yet, she is/was tarred & feathered, and still is crucified till this day.
Love affair w/ Obama, not if you saw the Socialist SOB coming.
I KNEW his agenda before he ever got into office, amazing what you can tell about folks by the company they keep,and past records.
I just am amazed he got / is getting away with it.
He would have been lucky to be a Mayor,he's that unqualified.
One thing for sure, he learned well from Clinton, how to be a Pathological Liar,and an ego maniac.(at least he skipped the skirt chasing,thus far).
Either way, he is a BANE on this country,(his nickname is Abaddon,and it fits) and I will forever be ashamed of my fellow black American bros /sisters, for continuing to support a wolf in sheeps clothing, simply because he's half black.
94% down only to 91%, after everything he's done to your country........
And to top it all off, after 2yrs WE, Americans that are against him, JUST do not get it.(his words)
Mr.President, if theres ONE thing we get, is we get IT.
There's no way you can be that stupid,ever heard NO means, NO?.
palin is tarred and feathered because she is stupid.
barry is a trojan horse, that has nothing to do with socialism.
he is a corpuscle in the bloodstream of the banksters.
Wow, a moron douchebag who actively publicly admits she/he/it loves and admires Sarah Palin.
What more can one say about such a lifeform?
Not me....I refuse to touch this one or get anywhere near she/he/it. Such a creature should be eternally quarantined.
I love sarah, bring it you douchebag asshole. Bring it.
Mort Zuckerman: Bilderberger
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bball.htm
Also CFR and CIA/Mossad Afghanistan World Foundation
http://www.nndb.com/people/629/000024557/
Yes. Old Morty is one key on the CIA’s Mighty Wurlitzer.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html
Mort's always been a moron. Amazing how he is so influential.
It's over, America?
I said, 'Yes we can'. You said 'But let's not'?
But...but...but...wwwhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
America is ready to be out of the wars.
But no politician is going to tell the truth. Perhaps they have visibility in Saudi production figures that we lack.
If you think this shit is bad, wait until the material production declines show up.
The sad thing is, all this talk about material wealth and standard of living is idiotic.
I was born poor, and was poor for a long, long time. I was not miserable (well, uncomfortable now and then), but I considered it "tough", not "miserable". Hell, I lived in a sleeping bag in the desert for 6 months one time in order to save money to implement the product I was developing.
What makes an honest human happy or satisfied is "moving forward" towards their personal goals. To make that practical requires a system that lets them keep and/or trade all they produce, and pay only for services they voluntarily wish to receive.
The entire government of the USSA should be completely shut down.
Sure, that's radical for most folks to comprehend, much less advocate. But there is one (and only one) alternative that is much "softer" for the majority of braindamaged children who inhabit the USSA today.
That is "government by subscription". Keep all government programs that do not inherently force individuals, but make them available by subscription. Let everyone else opt-out as they wish.
There were about 10 things Obama could've done that were radical enough to make a positive impression on most educated people who voted for him (like me). These things would have cost significant political capital but even the most ardent right winger (like my spouse) would've acknowledged that something bold had happened. He lost my vote and worse my respect because he really did nothing radical. Healthcare? I still pay outrageous amounts for healthcare for my employees (and my family), I still can't fathom why next-to-nothing is really covered by insurance. I still have endless red tape to mess with. I also note that where I live (in CT) those wonderful insurance companies are making record profits. My healthcare situation changed not at all, but became more expensive and more complicated. Change you can believe in, that. What would I have done differently?
1. simple, flat tax on income
2. withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, moved the CIA's 3000-strong force into Pakistan on the border only.
3. kept the deficit at least at some rational level (250b-500b), 1.4T is just a joke.
4. let the big banks fail, restructured them. this was a complete heist.
5. told Bernanke the Fed was going to help restructure debt, not print money. All this did was drive the price of financial assets up and the price of commodities up. The fact that 9/10 blacks and 2/3 hispanics support a president who is allowing Bernanke to drive the cost of living through the roof is a real sign of a gap in the way basic economics work. It's not as if this giant demographic owns a lot of BAC or GLD after all.
6. term limits; eliminate corporate political donations. people want to waste their money on politicians, fine. Goldman Sachs wants to keep Schumer in place; not fine.
7. dramatically reduced the financialization of the country. high tax on HFT, flat tax on PE, etc.
8. become the "green" president who supports energy innovation. Appoint Pickens or someone on Nat gas, appoint someone like Andy Grove on tech-driven energy innovation. he surrounded himself with Bob Rubin suck-ups like Summers. Makes me literally ill.
9. ensure the bankers and the fed don't monkey with the markets. let the markets clear, like is the case with about 80% of the real economy. It's not like someone props up the pricing in my 2 small businesses. So prices go down for a while. Too bad. I paid 300k for an apt in 1987 in NYC and sold it several years later for 200k. It sucked, but nobody was crying about how we ought to prop up the price of apartment in NY. And you know what. After they went down further and I saved some money, I bought a place in 95. Weird, how those free markets work.
10. Overall, I would basically save my rhetoric until AFTER I've done something for the regular person on the street. I would basically walk around the White House asking myself: "how can I make x more fair, less expensive, less controlled by bankers, less susceptible to manipulation."
Obviously we all know now the guy is a complete tool. We need a radical. We need something painfully honest. Hell, maybe we need a girl for a change.
Edna, a good start. I would add he could have actually prosecuted the criminals who got us into this in the 1st place. Instead, you get the sacrificial Madoff while Summers, Rubin and Geithner walk free.
+1 Edna and weinerdog
Me thinks you may have a bit of an issue with the process. The obstructionist GOP congress (the plan did get them elected but at what cost) would have blocked every one of your suggestions... even if Obama agreed with them.
President Obama's biggest failing is his belief in the process of governance... that compromise was effective, and possible. Sadly he was wrong, and it may be a very long time before the process returns to a functional level.
"Me thinks you may have a bit of an issue with the process. The obstructionist GOP congress (the plan did get them elected but at what cost) would have blocked every one of your suggestions... even if Obama agreed with them.
"President Obama's biggest failing is his belief in the process of governance... that compromise was effective, and possible. Sadly he was wrong, and it may be a very long time before the process returns to a functional level."
This is utter crap. Obama didn't need a single Republican vote in the House or Senate. The Democrats had their window of opportunity to do whatever they wanted, and they showed their true colors.
"This is utter crap. Obama didn't need a single Republican vote in the House or Senate."
Exactly.
They rammed through a 400 billion dollar pork fest continuing resolution upon taking office (partyline vote) that everyone forgets about, an 850 billion dollar "shovel ready stimulus" to college professors & statists everywhere (partyline vote), a trillion dollar Obama-Care (basically partyline vote) and somehow this is not the fault of the majority party in charge since 2006 in Congress?
Throw in Cash for Caulkers...Clunkers...the pawns in the subprime mortgage go round and you got the makings of a nice little Fourth Reich here...ROTFL.
When are civics classes going to be resumed in the USA?
ALL SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE...IF PASSED BY THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN OR VETO.
THAT IS ALL HE CAN DO.
HE ADVOCATED FOR THEM ALL BEFORE CONGRESS.
HE THEN SIGNED THEM ALL.
HE NOW OWNS THEM ALL.
+1
You missed one major issue though ... moral hazard. The USG needs to get out of the business of guaranteeing loans and severely restrict the activities of banks that participate in the FDIC (ie Glass Steagall).
That is not nearly radical enough. Fact is, not even RonPaul is radical enough... not even close - especially since the gangster banksters would kill him before he even took office. That is their modus-operandi when anyone in power moves even slightly towards [more] honest money.
It's past the time for a political solution.
We now need a Revolutionary solution, as we are approaching our Weimar moment.
The great battles of our time need to be settled not in the legislatures but in the streets, with Nationalist brownshirts fighting Jew/Communist red shirts, and so forth.
And if I were a Jew, I'd be seriously thinking about one of two things - either going back to Israel under the Law of Return (oops - not a good idea they're high-tax socialists) or finding some 3rd world country without tax or extradition treaties - like Paraguay, Bolivia or Panama..
After Obama,s latest speech,when he turned round and headed back into the Whitehouse the only truthful thing missing was the fact he didn,t shrug his shoulders and mutter "not my problem".
Poor Obama, and family, He was a euphoria generator, he told people what they wanted to hear, they believed him, he believed it himself! (Remember his pronouncements, on prime time TV, as to how; "He wouldn't stand for the bonuses at AIG and others, he spoke, but nothing happened, he told the World he was closing Gitmo, nothing happened. Things were finally explained to him just before he received the Peace Prize in Oslo, I noticed a change in him then, perhaps someone explained what it potentially meant to be "The new John Kennedy, what ever it was, his speech in Oslo was "Different" than any of his speeches before, that was when the magic left his voice! he has never been the same since, as someone said above, "He just doesn't care" (Did anyone else notice that change?)
Seems to me that blaming Obama, is really a symptom of what will be called the Age of Misdirection. To find who is responsible, you have to look at the one institution whose cheif officer spans that of our Presidents, and that is the Federal Reserve.I ain't going for no okeydoke. Bush creates the arena, and Obama takes over. But don't leave out Clinton and the Glass Steagal Act caper, and oh, yeah! There's the countless foreign adventures, and what not, gimme a break, stop blaming the black man.... I even hate to say it, now that Obama's been President, we all SHARE the blame.
I
Long time lurker, first time poster. Thankful to be here.
To me, the decline in our standard of living is mathematically impossible to reverse. And, no one knows (or can control to a large degree) how far that decline will go. What CAN be managed to some degree is the rate at which the decline ooccurs, and I believe everything - including articles of this sort - is a part of that management effort. Why?
No official would ever admit they were powerless to stop the decline. Nor would they admit their primary focus is to simply give the American people time to "accept" the change. Thus, they must have a scapegoat (who in fact may be aware and accepting of his role), and they have to make it appear as if they "did their best but failed".
This is oversimplfying of course, but you get my point no doubt. Thus it makes perfect sense to me that a one-time supporter would "turn" on Obama, who I have always believed is nothing more than the End Game 'Goat.
The "standard of living" is not a mathematical function, and can only be modeled in that way with any success whatsoever as long as the "system" remains the same.
And indeed, what is absolutely necessary is to throw off the current system, which bears little resemblance to what was "america" before the international central ganstger banksters took over in 1914.
There is no reason whatsoever that an honest, ethical, individualist, liberty-oriented country cannot improve its quality and standard of living indefinitely. All that is required is to remove the elitist authoritarian layer of predators-that-be.
Yes, easy to say but not easy to do. But necessary, or the entire planet will become totally enslaved - forever.
Eyes on the World,
I think you're onto something, that you have a lot more to say about how scape-goating Obama is the plan (and Obama is in on it and ok with it). Assuming this to be true, care to expand on how you see this all playing out?
Clint,
I couldn't begin to postulate on how this will play out, other than to say this ... I do believe we are looking at a net-negative change in America's standard of living - at least for our lifetimes. The delveraging that must occur will demand a slower rate of growth in the US (I predict 1 - 2% for years) and that means doing with less for many. That being said, there are only two ways we can get there - voluntarily and involuntarily. From what I see we will choose to go the involuntary route; it will be much more painful and dangerous than need be were we to have an educated and involved citizenry and true leadership. Alas, humans ALWAYS choose to take the path of least resistance and end up paying for it in the end. Many will suffer, but in the end we will still need homes, jobs, cars, etc. The best I can say is that I hope the Republic remains intact and we come through this with some remaining belief in the American dream, the COTUS, and the Rule of Law. I pray each day for wisdom to prevail while at the same time preparing to defend my family against the evil of man. I get up and go to work, and do the best I can while trying to inform others of what's going on, as the alternative is to grab a shotgun and hide under a rock.
You are right in a lot of ways. Keep posting those thoughts as they come to you.
I was saying in 2007 that given the shit storm in our future I expected Obama to be a one term president. Now that this is the consensus, it is time to fade myself. Obama the first augustus in 2000 years?
Obama is doing just about everything he said he would do if elected. No one should have been surprised. I know George Soros is certainly fine with him. How could you expect the most liberal man ever elected to do anything other than expand government and run up debt? It is what they do.
So, we're blaming the scorpion for its sting?
Doesn't sound like a worthwhile endeavor, does it?
Being the President is one of the most difficult jobs on the Planet. The number of issues one has to keep on top of, and the level of executive decision making is phenomenal. A great deal of sacrifice is also required. One cannot be anonymous anymore. A President cannot even scratch himself without some pundit reading great portent into the move. The psychological, physical and spiritual health of the President is important for the whole world. There is a glaring fault with the dominant government system in the West. Democracy ensures everyone is equal, so no one can give orders or criticise. A decent command structure breaks down. The American Constitution is however one of the most important document on the Planet. The design of the Republic is good, but not perfect. Another global structure is emerging.
Regarding "hate". There are scales of dislike for a person ranging from :
100 - Want to kill them
to
1 Mildly irritated by them
Thank G-d President Obama has a great team of security personnel working to make sure he and his family are safe. Blessings to them all.
G-d bless America !
Hey Adam Neira
I guess you missed Rev. Wright's inspiration, "God damn America!"
You must have been asleep in church (as was Obama).
Obama complains about the rigors of the office--that he's been working so hard--that's the reason he was so out of touch with the electorate this election cycle.
Well, la tee da........
If you can't handle your job Obi, get outta the way and let someone else take the lead.
What a dozer.
President != King Read the US Constitution, then explain just how this "Cult" of the US Presidency is helping.
Obama ran as a centrist and the MSM covered for him.
He was anything but a centrist. That was the first lie.
I still gave him the benefit of the doubt until he supported marxist Manuel Zelaya's failed takeover of Honduras, with the help of Chavez. That wasn't very nice.
BS article. Obama promised to change _the system_ of government-by-lobbyist. He has made not so much as a single effort to do so. Big surprise.
No mention of selling out to wall street fraud and corruption. Ignoring the elephant in the room. This is 100% why the voter is angry.
The economy IS falling down around us, and ignoring the causes and cover up will only cause it to get worse.
My long term indicators continue to warn of USD strength and EURO weakness.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com