Obama Facing a Mounting Rebellion That His Presidency May Never Recover

Thursday, April 9, 2009

I, like others in this country, had high hopes for Obama. I didn’t vote for him and there was much I agreed with in his policies, but at least there was hope that he would get it right in the end. After all, he recognized a lot of the country’s main problems like energy independence, health care reform, and the economy. I simply did not agree with his solutions to these problems. Obama proclaimed himself to be bipartisan and open to differing and creative ways to deal with these problems. However, and I need to amend some statements I’ve made regarding Obama being a consistent politician, Obama has not followed through in regards to how he intended to achieve his goals. Although the far left has enjoyed watching Obama’s dismissing and patronizing attitude in dealing with this country’s institutions (one’s they’ve hated for decades), they have sacrificed their plans for a few months of feeling vindicated. Even now they are in denial that there is a massive revolt reaching critical mass and Obama is standing in its wake. This post would take far too long to detail and connect all the dots, so instead I’m going to cover the biggest movements.

The TARP Rebellion – I know the minute I write this first point I’m going to get responses about AIG and how every bank is cheating and stealing from the people and how Obama needs to shake these guys up and keep them in their place. Though this may certainly be true of some financial institutions, it is a very broad brush. Instead of speaking out for the majority of banks that really were and are doing the right thing during the AIG fiasco (which was bad, but severely blown out of proportion), Obama passed the buck off on many of the innocent as well. Today there are a growing number of banks starting to speak out against TARP and some of the executive abuses associated with the program.

“When we took the money, it was because only the good banks were going to get the money, the strong banks,” Korstange told CNSNews.com. “We believe that we are and we know that we are a strong bank and that’s why they came to us and asked that we take it (TARP money).

“Then public perception, quite frankly, led by some of the politicians, changed--it became bailout money and it completely changed the perception of what (the TARP program) is.”

“Once that happened, the politicians decided they could run the banks (and) that they could tell us all the things we can and cannot do,” Korstange said. “So we just said, ‘Hey, we don’t need this, we didn’t need it at the beginning, and we’ll give it back to you.’"


Sbj.net reported this in regards to Richard Davis, CEO US Bankcorp:

Last month, Davis publicly called TARP "lousy" and "just trouble" during a speech to the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Business Leaders Forum, according to a report in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. After introducing the program as a way for banks to sustain lending and acquire troubled institutions, the rules have changed, Davis told the group.

"Now they're punishing you for having the capital," Davis reportedly said, adding that he wouldn't let U.S. Bancorp become "collateral damage in an attempt to nationalize the banks."


Today Reuters pointed to the growing voices in the banking industry:

Banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Corp have signaled their eagerness to pay back the money as soon as possible.

Reuters went on to describe that the Treasury is reluctant to allow these funds to be returned. Wasn’t Obama supposed to be reaching out to everyone and heal divisions? Where does Obama fit in? He wants TARP 2 if you can remember, but I’m starting to doubt whether it will come to fruition as banks are turning TARP 1 into a battlefield.

State Sovereignty – Remember how Obama was going to put strings on States receiving TARP money? The media has been ignoring the growing number of states passing resolutions affirming their state sovereignty. Media coverage is so small that I cannot say for certainty how many states have passed resolutions (there were 4 that had passed and more than 30 states with proposals on 3/27).

Ford Capitalizing on the Obama Motor Take Over – Borrowers worried about government take over have settled Ford Bond debts for 38 cents on the dollar. Theglobeandmail.com had this to say:

And Ford, unlike its Detroit rivals, has an army of senior executives, designers, engineers and marketers here, all available to talk the Ford line. Ford is trying desperately to shape its message and that message boils down to this: “I'm not with stupid.”

Obama’s power grab has investors, suppliers and even buyers nervous over continuing their stakeholder status with GM and Chrysler. If Ford capitalizes, this could mean disaster for the companies that Obama is going to infuse with tax payer dollars and will need to show a turn around lest he lose political capital on his failed power grab.

Tea Parties – Another big development is the tea party movement. There are protests occurring in over 1,800 cities planned for 4/15. What’s most important about this movement is that those joining these movements are not people who have been political activists in the past. The PEW poll showing Obama the most polarizing President in the modern age seems to be ringing true.

These are just a few of the many growing developments. I’ve left out Obama’s waning support for his budget and an increasingly aggressive foreign policy landscape, even as he looks to “heal” America’s world image. The truth is I believe much of this could have been avoided had he proven himself the negotiator and centrist he tried to portray himself, but you don’t stiffen your neck in an aggressive posture unless your willing for a fight. There truly is something to working across the isle. It’s what the people voted for, but what we got was someone focused solely on his own progressive agenda, no matter what the political cost.

2 comments

Before you have a wake for the Banking Industry and decry that capitalism is dead, some of points need to be aired. 1) Obama didn't create this mess (8 years of deregulation propelled it) and you want him to fix it in 3 months.
2) Those truly "good" banks out there aren't loaning out money sitting in their vaults. They say they are afraid of the risks. So, they are doing their part to steamroll the stimulus package.
3) You make it sound as if banks are or should be left out of Fed. regulations when, in fact, the Fed and F.D.I.C. have exigent reasons to hammer away at the big bankers.
4) Where do you get the "polarizing" stats to assert that Prez. Obama is the most polarizing president ever?
And, 5) come on, everyone knows the Tea Party Revolution isn't a revolution at all and that it is made up of conservatives on the far right who will do or say anything that is anti the fed system of govt.

April 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM

hey Del,

Thanks for your post.

1) In fixing it you mean taking them over and dictating to them how to run their business? Then I'm certainly not looking for Obama to "fix" anything. Believe it or not, Bush became irrelevant after he left office, at the moment the more pressing issue is how Obama's doing. You should check deregulation out though. Almost all the deregulation occurred before Bush. It started with Carter and pretty much completed with the repeal of Glass-Stegall in 1999 with Clinton. Unfortunately, Obama needs to learn to work with what he's got. I never heard anyone apologizing for Washington's defeats because he had farmers for soldiers.

2) I'm sorry, I work with credit all day long and I do not see what you are talking about in this point. The owners and CFOs I talk to are moving their credit from banks that won't lend to the ones that will. I haven't had any of them tell me they couldn't find some bank willing to lend. The transition on the other hand is long and hard to do. The real life blood of the economy is trade credit, which is still alive and strong although probably less so in the auto industry these days. Finally, I love my bank. They've actually gone to bat for me in the past. I've become an owner in my bank and they were not involved in unconventional mortgages. So you could say I know at least one bank that is not evil and certainly does not deserve to be lumped in with all the others and be ridiculed. I find it hard to believe there aren't many others (possibly a majority of others) that aren't the same.

3) I said nothing about regulations or the FED. Should they hammer away at all the banks?

4) I cited PEW in my post. Here is the link http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic

5) I don't recall calling Tea Parties a revolution. However, since you brought it up, dictionary.com defines revolution as a sudden, complete or marked change in something. Most activist liberals have almost always been activist liberals. There are many who are paid to be activist liberals. Your average conservative never assembles like this and certainly not in these numbers, so if you don't think this is a big deal, then I think you are mistaken.

April 10, 2009 at 6:48 AM

Post a Comment