Does Bush Care?
I mean, really. I have to ask. The nation’s financial markets are in the worst shape they’ve been in since the 1930s and Bush finally says something about it — himself, not through a spokeshole — and it’s not much more than platitudes.
From today’s White House Watch:
Briefly emerging from his near-invisibility during the nation’s terrifying financial crisis, President Bush this morning offered brief, unsubstantive and unpersuasive assurances.
“The American people are concerned about the situation in our financial markets and our economy,” he said, in a dazzling statement of the obvious. “And I share their concerns.”
To emphasize just how concerned he is, Bush announced: “I’ve canceled my travel today to stay in Washington, where I will continue to closely monitor the situation in our financial markets and consult with my economic advisors.” But in reality, canceling his travel was the only way to avoid a public-relations disaster: Up until late last night, Bush had been planning on headlining two big-money Republican fundraisers in Huntsville, Ala., and Palm Beach, Fl.
And here is what you might call the “money quote”: “[M]y administration is focused on meeting these challenges. The American people can be sure we will continue to act to strengthen and stabilize our financial markets and improve investor confidence. “
Anbody reassured? I didn’t think so.
His remarks, made just outside the Oval Office, lasted less than two minutes. Nothing he said changed the growing awareness in Washington that, despite being the nation’s first MBA president, Bush has been and remains largely AWOL as the nation’s wealth dwindles away.
And of course, he took no questions.
The same piece goes on to quote Leon Panetta:
“The country is facing an economic 9/11,” said Leon Panetta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. “To deal with that kind of situation, the president has to take charge and tell the country not only what is going on, but what he is going to do about it. You can’t just leave it to the secretary of the Treasury.”
It’s the same pattern with George W Bush throughout his presidency.
- Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans, putting nearly the entire city underwater and he is sitting on his ranch, on vacation. When he does finally get to New Orleans, Bush tells the FEMA chief that he’s “doing a heckuva job.”
- When faced with a declining value of a dollar, causing the price of oil (along with almost everything else that we import) to increase, he says, “My administration believes in a strong dollar.”
- Now, there is zero leadership coming from the White House on the worst financial crisis in more than 70 years. Panetta has it right. It cannot be left to the secretary of the Treasury alone, no matter how competent he may be.
Where is the president? He is fighting a war we didn’t need to fight, spending billions of dollars in treasure and thousands of lives. His leadership on domestic issues — remember, he wanted to privatize Social Security — is simply absent. He is AWOL without having gone over the wall. I’m not talking about blame for the crisis itself here (although the Bush Administration certainly has its share of that); I’m talking about crisis management, and simple leadership.
It’s another example of how the Republicans in Washington — McCain is one of those — have lost tough. We need new leadership in Washington. Obama is the only choice for that.
lost tough from the close….touch. Funny how 70 years ago and the times in between the government never felt the need to take things over.
the presdident bush is a joke…..we should send him to iraq to fight the war if his so greedy 4 oil
thats what the war is all about….
The nation’s financial markets are in the worst shape they’ve been in since the 1930s and Bush finally says something about it — himself, not through a spokeshole — and it’s not much more than platitudes.
Oh baloney…where do you rocket scientists dredge up this crap? You’re so incredibly dishonest, you ought be ashamed of yourself. As we speak, the stock market is back up 400 points – I guess disagreeing with your assessment we’re in such dire straights.
Do you loons have any clue in how much control a President has of the fiduciary responsibility of this country? If you’re going to blame a politician, what is your Dimocratic controlled Congress doing about this? Where’s Nanzi and Harry the Feckless? Congress is, is it not, responsible for the legislative purse strings of the U.S.? And naturally, ignorant as ever, you libs want to blame Bush…
Here’s a perfect example of the blatant liberal hypocrisy and double standard – one that I see on every socialist, I mean progressive blog. Charlie Rangel, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, the same one that create and write the rules for collection of your taxes, is under investigation for cheating on his taxes. Rangel is a fraud and a thief. And you want to point fingers at Bush for moral platitudes and dishonesty?
I think I know what the problem might be. You’ve been listening to the old mule, destined for the glue factory, and closet lib Alan Greenspan too much again, haven’t you? He’s trying to CHA as attested to by no less than the the libbie bastion at CNBC. Greenspan can hardly manage his way home anymore.
Deannaizme, just so you’ll be in the know next time:
In 1979, the prime interest rate was 16%, a home loan was 21%, unemployment at 10+%, we just came out of rationing gas, the military in disarray, and Dhimmi Carter was preaching about “malaise” and licking the boot of Ayatollah Khomeni, while Iran held captive hostages for 444 days. It took an Olympic hockey game to even lift the spirits of America. If you’re under 45, you don’t even know what bad economy is.
You want me to prove how clueless your knowledge base here at the blog of uninformed repute? Watch…
Valerei
can you tell us how much of the strategic oil imports came from Iraq before the start of the Gulf War and how much do we receive now?
Fiduciary? Or financial? Fiduciary means a duty to act in a certain way on behalf of a client, for instance. A fiduciary is someone who holds something in trust for another.
Look, Tex, you and I are going to agree on nothing, it’s clear. I know the president has little control of financial markets, but his presence in stabilizing markets is more than symbolic. If he says the right things, conditions calm down. Markets are about confidence. No confidence, you see what we’ve seen this week.
As for a rally today, good. But if you think this is the end of volatility, you’re sadly mistaken. There are more financial firms to fail, and be bought out of receivership. This instability is nowhere near done.
I’m far from the only one asking whether Bush is AWOL. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13579.html for another, better post than mine.
In a fiduciary relation one person justifiably reposes confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter.
Like our gov’t Deannaizme… Have we quickly forgotten who it was that bailed Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now AIG – as in fiduciary responsibility? As in who prints and insures/protects money Deannaizme? That’s fiduciary responsibility.
Tell me, out of curiosity. Exactly what are your qualifications to make these statements about “finances”, Wall Street and the ‘horrid’ economy. Is it opinion and some article you’ve read, or is it expertise and experience?
As for a rally today, good. But if you think this is the end of volatility, you’re sadly mistaken. There are more financial firms to fail, and be bought out of receivership. This instability is nowhere near done.
That’s Wall St. Deannaizme. There’s risk associated in every transaction, every day. You will never find a time there hasn’t been instability of some shape, form or fashion. If it not the banks and the housing market, it will be the commodities markets; if it not the commodities markets, it will be junk bonds; if it’s not junk bonds, it will be a tech bubble. This isn’t the first time, nor will be the last the market has tanked. I told people two months ago there was an oil bubble – and if I were rich and weren’t going to medical school, I’d be shorting the commodity.
This is just another club or convenient excuse for your type to blame Bush for all ills. What are you going to do if Obama wins and things turn south? You still going to blame Bush? I mean, it’s pathetic and terribly weak.
Roger Simon is generally a fine journalist – but it’s opinion; nothing more. You don’t think I can find about a hundred articles from equally qualified people saying relax?
Of course others believe Bush is an evil, self-centered liar. As the leader, or at least the figure head, of this nation, he is the target for anything that go wrong, regardless of whether or not he is responsible.
Saying the right things to inspire confidence isn’t a cure, it is just temporary, kind of like a rally. Just remember that Congress controls the purse strings of the nation, and Bush can’t be blamed for their antics.
Deannaizme,
I just read the about box which I should have done in the first place. I think we come from two very different worlds. Might help to explain the difference of opinion…
:)
The best thing that George W Bush could do to help this terrible economy is to go to Crawford Texas and clear some brush. He’s done enough damage. Everything that the boy Bush touches he destroys. The most incompetent and inept president ever.
Deanna – do we need to be attacked and called names by Tex Taylor?
This is George Bush’s financial Katrina. It could not come at a worse time for John McCain.
Bush could have done better than a 2 minute statement, but frankly, I haven’t heard much wisdom from any politician on any of this.
Politicians have about as much business talking about economics as they have talking about brain surgery. We don’t need any of them on their daily stump playing up the panic to support their political agendas.
Real leaders know their limitations. And perhaps that is why Bush didn’t have much to say today. Economics is like chemistry—not politics.
This isn’t time for panic. We need to let the real economists—who aren’t guided by any political agenda—take a look at what is going on and reccomend a strategy for the short term, so things can stabalize.
Which is what they are doing, as the Fed pumps money to lenders the last 2 days. Without lending, NOTHING goes on—ANYWHERE in the world. And right now, nobody is lending anything to anyone anywhere.
There is also talk of setting up a deal where mortgages at risk of foreclosure would get refinanced at 5% over the life of the loan. This would make the probability of payment more likely, which benefits both the homeowner who gets to keep his house and the lender who is getting some money instead of a house he can’t sell. I’m no economist, but at face value this sounds like an idea worth looking into.
Red Pill, I agree with the low interest mortgages. Making the payment affordable would certainly foster repayment of the loan The government should have put a stop to these variable rate mortgages a long time ago or at least put some type of restrictions on how the rates can fluctuate. This was a scam by greedy people and now, once again, we, the taxpayer are going to need to bail out these banks and mortgage companies. Anyone remember the Keating Five?
I must disagree with you about George W Bush and this financial mess. It is the deregulation of these financial institutions which George W Bush supported along with John McCain and other Republicans that put us in this mess. Trickle down economics is a fallacy started by Ronnie Reagan which continues with the Bush Administration. It doesn’t work. Greedy people keep the profits, while everyone else suffers. Remember Enron? The pension was gone but the CEO didn’t lose any money.
Cats, we don’t and we won’t.
Red, I think this is a crisis of confidence. I think Bush could do a lot more to help restore some confidence. An address to the nation would help. He’s been absent on this issue. Paulson is doing good work, but this is about the president. Bush has to lead on this issue. What did I hear from a CFO of a financial company in a presentation yesterday?…. He talked about a gossamer web of confidence. If it’s gone, people act irrationally. And that’s what’s happening now.
@Cats: I didn’t mention Bush and the current situation, I just said he could have said more and offered a reason as to maybe why he didn’t.
The debate over Supply-Side (trickle-down) Economics and Demand-Side Economics is as old as both ideologies, and has been debated by folks a lot smarter than anyone here (no offense to anyone). So I’m not even going to go there, except to say I disagree with your assessment.
@deannaizme: I agree with the confidence point. It’s the lack of confidence combined causing the panic and lack of lending I referred to. And I agree that Bush could have said more, even if all he gave was a few details about what was being discussed.
My point was that I would rather politicians say nothing than to say the wrong things simply for the sake of saying something at all.
Yes, Bush has to lead on this issue—to a point. I would also offer that Congress must lead, and that will be hard to do when they are on recess. We don’t need rash decisions based on timelines because Congress won’t be around after next week to approve anything.
This has been coming on for a long time, and anyone who blames a single person, party, or ideology is simply stumping.
I agree. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and I don’t think it can all be laid on Bush. He does share a large portion of it, though. I’m less worried about blame and more concerned about crisis management. He’s doing better today, but I still think a primetime address to the nation is warranted.
deannaizme,
The financial markets are in the worst shape they’ve been in since the 1930s?
OK. Instead of challenging you to support that statement, an having to endure your interpretation of the Squirming Weasel dance, I’ll focus on one that is simply, irrefutably, blatantly wrong:
Hurricane Katrina didn’t hit New Orleans.
Why not be the first in your collective to get that right, eh?