Obama’s Plan to End Bipartisanship Succeeds at Last!

Left, Right agree: Obama’s G-20 performance worst ever

posted at 3:00 pm on November 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

First, let’s hear from the usual suspects.  The Wall Street Journal looks at Barack Obama’s performance at the G-20 summit as well as his trip to Seoul and pronounces it the worst ever for an American President.  The editors are disgusted by the performance, but in the end say failure was the right outcome:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America’s problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world. …

The world also rejected Mr. Geithner’s high-profile call for a 4% limit on a nation’s trade surplus or deficit, which would amount to new political controls on trade and capital flows. This contradicts at least three decades of U.S. policy advice against national barriers to the flow of money and goods. We don’t like to see U.S. Treasury Secretaries so completely shot down by the rest of the world, except when they are so clearly misguided.

But this is the Wall Street Journal, Obama’s defenders will say.  The capitalists at the WSJ don’t like Obama anyway.  Well, that’s certainly true, as the Journal has provided one of the few substantial media platforms that has bothered to look critically at Obama’s performance rather than his public-relations profile.  But how about looking 3,000 miles west to San Francisco, the heart of Nancy Pelosi-style progressivism, to see how his G-20 performance looked from that perspective?  Interestingly, it looks as though Obama has truly delivered consensus when one reads the San Francisco Chronicle editorial from yesterday’s edition:

Shellacked at home, shellacked abroad. President Obama’s Asia trip is extending a losing streak with the latest setback – a refusal by other major financial powers to follow his lead to revive the global economy.

The president’s nostrums, which began with a call for stimulus-style pump priming by other nations, had evolved into a plan to ease wild swings in currency values and overboard trade imbalances. But he got next to nothing in showdown meetings with other leaders of the G-20 nations, or major economic powers. U.S. leadership, once taken for granted, has all but vanished, and no one’s in charge.

Of course, as the Chronicle notes later in the article, Obama could hardly be said to be providing a lead to follow.  He arrived at the G-20, fresh from his rebuff from Seoul over a trade agreement that George Bush had wrapped in a tidy bow three years ago and Democrats rejected, insisting that the industrialized nations refrain from currency manipulations — while defending the second round of quantitative easing that the Fed introduced to do just that.  Obama learned the hard way that few people will follow a “Do as I say, not as I do” model of leadership, and may end up touching off a currency war as a result.

In 2008, we warned about the dangers of putting a man in the White House with no executive, military, diplomatic, or private-sector experience.  It should shock no one to find that American leadership has utterly vanished on the international stage when we elect someone incapable of providing that leadership.  The lesson from both the Right and Left coasts’ media is that Barack Obama is in way over his head and doesn’t have a clue how to get back to the surface.


  1. #1 by Jim on November 18, 2010 - 10:59 am

    Barack Obama, a psychoanalysis- Are we dealing with a guy that is truly making these mistakes, or creating them on purpose? Yes it is true; he had no experience at governing, or a useful, productive, track record as a senator, but come on. I truly want to know if he believes he can change thousands of years of human history with his tactics of capitulation. Whether you are a CEO of a giant corporation, (two nasty words in this sentence so far) or whether you are a president. You can only govern, push, and create opportunities from a position of power. The power that the USA had, was revered by many countries, envied by some, and desired by all. That power often created jealousies, but most were healthy, and many productive. What it always did was inspire the world. Other nations are trying and are striving to become successful like we were. Japan and now China are vying for that position now, to name a few. So now we are to believe that this man, this president (that title for him just sticks in my throat) is now throwing it all away, and he doesn’t know it. I don’t believe it. It’s deliberate, planned, and administered diabolically so he and his buddy, I won’t mention a name; but it begins with George and ends with ‘oros’ can have a new world order. One where we are all equal in lethargy, equal in mediocrity and have no reason to strive for more. Why, so the government can ‘take care of us’; like Hitler, like Stalin. No, I don’t believe that a man that defeated the ‘Clinton’ political machine is that naive or that misinformed. He just believes, truly believes in socialism and a new world order. In their hearts most Americans know, given the correct information, where to take this country. Tell your friends, no, rather educate your friends, what it takes to make America great again. Tell them how a ‘free’ society, based on a republic and governed by people of multiple ethnicities, pledging allegiance to one culture, under God, fueling an ‘engine’ of capitalism passed the rest of the world in a little over two hundred years.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: