Powerline considers the theory put forth by Doug Ross et. al. that Obama is tanking the economy on purpose:
It is, I admit, an intriguing theory, but I don't buy it. Obama can't possibly want to be a one-term failure. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter, and Obama must know that it will happen to him, too, if his policies are perceived as dragging down the economy.
More likely the explanation is that Obama is an economic illiterate, and subscribes to the idea--which I think is rather common among Democrats--that what the government does has little impact on the economy. Obama likely believes that the economy will recover on its own, and in the meantime--in Rahm Emanuel's immortal words--he shouldn't let the crisis go to waste. So he enacts every left-wing measure that he wanted to do anyway, expecting that when the economy eventually recovers he can take credit for it, even though his policies, if anything, retarded and weakened the recovery.
That's a cynical strategy, although not quite as cynical as destroying the economy on purpose; the difference is that it may well work.
http://powerlineblog.com/
I'm with the Powerline guys on this one. So far Obama has been cautious in foreign policy and bold in domestic policy. This is his chance to do something big and he's seizing it. Unless the Blue Dogs revolt, there is no opposition he must pay real attention to.
***
One question that must be occurring to politicians both inside the US and outside: how does Obama react when he is confronted by someone too powerful to be brushed aside? What does he do when the choice is confront, back down, or pretend to ignore but deal with the consequences? I don't know the answer to this question. I suspect (h/t to Joe Biden) that several foreign leaders will set out to discover the answer.
Including Bibi. If push comes to shove, he might feel it necessary to attack Iran with only a bare 'heads up' to the US. Bibi knows the Congress won't take Iran's side over Israel's. The unknown is sizing up Obama's reaction. |
