The Rhetorican suggests that Obama has a bit of a Rumsfeldian dilemma:
Hmm. Does Forbes’s Dan Gerstein read The Rhetorican?
I doubt it, but he’s obviously caught the same vibe I caught the other day:
AdvertisementObama has more than a Geithner problem. He has what I would call a Rumsfeld problem... [T]he president made the mistake of going to economic war with the army he had–which was built for political speed and presidential comfort–instead of the army he needs to beat back the crisis of confidence that is crippling our markets…
I’m not sure Obama has gone to economic war with the right weapons either. How will socialized medicine, cap and trade, and universal college ward off the ravages of the crisis? Is there – dare I ask - an exit strategy? When do we stop the bailouts and gargantuan deficits?
Or to put it in terms Obama can understand: when do we bring our finances back home to reasonableness?
In the meantime, you and I have a…do I even need to say it at this point? Especially with further lunatic bills such as this from various state governments with the potential to further gum up the works inside our “emerging” financial markets?
Related: Michael Goodwin adds, “President Obama failed to sell his budget plans to the American people.”












The Rhetorican has a problem, too. The Rhetorican thinks this is an accident and that Obama actually *wants* to solve the financial crisis. HINT: if you never want to waste a good crisis, what’s the point of solving the crisis? Obama will ride the “this is Bush’s fault” horse as long as the MSM will let him, i.e. forever.
Accident? Whatever, OC Bill. I was talking about what Obama *really* wants to do before the topic was cool (during the campaign). HINT: don’t try to read my mind, try to read the blog! It features no advertising and…well, posts and posts and posts…
I do have a problem, though. Well, several. But that’s life…
I re-read your post. It confirmed my first impression. I can also see why it features no advertising.
Re-read the post, OC Bill? I said try to read the blog, not re-read the post.
That aside, I still don’t see how the post (1) alludes to me thinking that Obama’s plans are “an accident”;(2)supports your impression; or (3) supports any of your points. But let’s not get into reading comprehension now.
In other words, I don’t think you have or can prove your point, but that’s ok. That’s what comments are for. Enjoy! (Lord knows I am!)