the roof . . . the roof . . .

I guess the only thing I want to write is that I found this Wall Street Journal column very confusing. The writer (for good or for bad) had the guts to say what he or she thinks about Obama, particularly that sentence he or she emphasized for rhetorical effect (“So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus”). I disagree with the sentiment because I think the President is a pretty level-headed guy, i.e. not someone who, in the least, doesn’t understand the difference between plain old pork-barrel spending and stimulus or, at worst, who maliciously distorts facts to further a political agenda. So, I just can’t agree with that sentence with the emphasis added (“So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus”).

To be sure, the columnist immediately followed-up the emphasis-added sentence with, “This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it.” But this is where I got confused. After slamming the president for either lying to the American people or being a numb-skull, why then does the writer retreat with that coda? To me, the writer is sissy-footing around. If the writer thinks Obama is lying, distorting facts, or not the sharpest blade in the drawer, then just say and stick to that. I might disagree with you but I will appreciate the honesty with which you carry your point.

But that’s the crux of the WSJ column if subtly stated, isn’t it?

From the writer’s viewpoint, the “stimulus tragedy” is that the emerging package is based on a numb-skull, un-nuanced interpretation of stimulus.So, if (a) on stimulus, Obama is a numb-skull or, worse, a liar; and, (b) Obama is President and, as such, makes important decisions; therefore, (c) Obama can’t be trusted to do the right thing.

But notice where all the emphasis is? It’s on Obama . . . not on the fact (and I mean this strictly) of eight years of Bush in the White House, and as fine a fellow as he is (and I do believe GW Bush is a fine fellow who earnestly tried to do his best for our nation), our problems occurred under his watch. I’ll even throw in the fact that the mess happened under the watch of the Democrats – Pelosi and Reid. So, the status quo is culpable.

The point is that Obama is trying his hardest to solve a problem the magnitude of which is growing even more with the passage of time, and above all, he’s not trying to turn back the clock by using plays out of a failed playbook.  Jeesh, WSJ columnist . . . if you want to sit on your hands and pick nits, fine, then go ahead. But at least be straight forward with how you really feel about this guy.  But just remember that, in the mean time, you know . . . the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire . . . and dang it . . . something has got to be done that’s a solution on order (if not in excess of) the magnitude of the damage that has and will occur.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: