IT’S ALL OBAMA’S FAULT…. In general, I avoid commenting on Michelle Malkin posts — there’s rarely any point — but she had a gem today that’s just too amusing to ignore. (via Memeorandum) The headline reads, “President Obama’s 2,000-point tumble,” and argues:
On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.
In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to [sic] 7,606.53.
Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period — during the first few months of his presidency.
Great start, O.
Note that for Malkin, the clock started on Nov. 4, the day of the presidential election. So, President Obama got off to a poor start 106 days before his inauguration. Indeed, his start began while voters were still at the ballot box.
(For anyone who’s curious, the Dow Jones closed at 7,949 on Jan. 20. That’s not 9,625.)
It’s hard to even know where to start with such a silly argument. George W. Bush — who left the country a $10 trillion debt, enough to earn a “President Generational Theft” award from Malkin — saw the market go from around 14,000 to around 8,000 over 14 or so months. That’s a “tumble.”
Obama, meanwhile, took office in the midst of a global economic crisis. While Malkin referenced the “first few months” of a presidency, Obama has been in office for just 27 days, and has barely begun to implement an economic policy.
I can appreciate the fact that Malkin, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al, want to see Obama fail. I can even understand why. If they can just convince enough people that bad news is the president’s fault, they might be able to get new leadership that can bring back the policies that contributed to this economic nightmare in the first place.
But blaming even a 300-point Dow Jones drop, over a month, on the new president is unusually foolish, even by far-right standards.
