Actually Barry, you did build that. “New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct — Obama Is Lousy CEO,” Rich Karlgaard writes at Forbes:
Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.
With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?
What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.
Especially considering how long his poor track record has been. Or as Tony Lee of Big Government wrote in mid-August, in his review of the Politico’s new book, Obama’s Last Stand:
During the 2008 campaign, the Obama campaign, with the help of the mainstream media, repeatedly made the argument that Obama could be the country’s CEO because of how well he was managing his campaign. The details in this book should be enough for the mainstream media, if they hold him to their standards, to disqualify Obama for reelection.
Why would they do that? That’s the observation that Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard makes at the conclusion of his humorous review of another recent Obama e-book, this one by James Fallows, who recently pitched a hissy fit over Niall (no relation, I assume) Ferguson’s anti-Obama cover story in Newsweek:
In his interview with Coates, at the book’s end, having offered what I’m sure he believes is an unblinkered view of the president and his failings, Fallows makes clear that all the arguments in the foregoing pages are, finally, not particularly germane to the question at hand: Should Obama be reelected?
“I’m going to vote for him,” Fallows says, “because: One, I prefer Democratic to Republican economic policy. . . . Two, I prefer Democratic foreign policy to Republican foreign policy. . . . Three, I prefer Democratic to Republican judicial/social policy.”
Notice that the particulars of the Obama presidency have vanished altogether. It’s a bit of a letdown for a reader who’s been patient enough to slog through his e-book. James Fallows will vote for President Obama because Obama is a Democrat and so is he.
Well, why didn’t he just say so in the first place? Why do Democrats always make things so complicated?
Which is the bottom line for the rest of the MSM as well.
(Found via Ricochet, where it’s also embedded, so I’m assuming this photo was meant for wide dissemination; if I’m incorrect, please email if you own the copyright, and I’ll pull the image and just link.)
Update: “As the National Debt Hits $16 Trillion Today, a Video Flashback,” via Glenn Reynolds: Campaign 2008: Obama Says Adding $4 Trillion to The Debt Is Unpatriotic.
As Kathy Shaidle likes to say, the left “should just get brutally honest with themselves and with the rest of us and rename themselves the ‘It’s Different When We Do It” Party.’
Join the conversation as a VIP Member