Michelle Malkin » Obama: Sure, I’m the Captain of the Ship, But I Can’t Control the Weather

Obama: Sure, I’m the Captain of the Ship, But I Can’t Control the Weather

By Doug Powers • December 10, 2011 10:55 AM

**Written by Doug Powers
*****

Am I in my cabin dreaming,
Or are you really scheming,
To take my ship away from me?

Out: Republicans put the car in a ditch. In: I’m the captain of a ship in rough seas but can’t control the weather.

If you’ve got a thing for high-seas metaphors, President Obama’s upcoming 60 Minutes interview has you covered:

STEVE KROFT: Do you think that you might have the unemployment rate down to 8 percent by the time the election rolls around?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think it’s possible. But…I’m not in the job of prognosticating on the economy. I’m in the job of putting in place the tools that allow the economy to thrive and Americans to succeed. Sometimes when I’m talking to my team, I- describe us…as…I’m the captain and they’re the crew on a ship, going through really bad storms. And no matter how well we’re steering the ship, if the boat’s rocking back and forth and people are getting sick and…they’re being buffeted by the winds and the rain and…at a certain point– if you’re asking, “Are you enjoying the ride right now?” Folks are going to say, “No.” And are they going to say, “Do you think the captain’s good—doing a good job?” People are going say, “You know what? A good captain would have had us in some smooth waters and sunny skies, at this point.” And I don’t control the weather. What I can control are the policies we’re putting in place to make a difference in people’s lives.

Please pass the Dramamine.

Many assumed that a candidate who claimed to have the ability to slow the rise of the oceans might also be able to quell the vexed state of the fiscal seas. But alas, even Neptune and Poseidon had their weaknesses, and apparently economics was one of them.

Obama’s problems aren’t as much about weather as they are about direction. According to a CBS News poll, voters are “overwhelmingly pessimistic” (keep in mind though this data comes from a network that was overwhelmingly optimistic about Katie Couric). According to the poll, 75 percent of the country says the nation is headed the wrong way — not only through “rough seas” mind you, but in the wrong direction. Captains can’t control the weather, but they are held accountable for the movements of the rudder:

Obama might claim to have no control over the economic weather, but his Doppler radar reaches back quite a ways to explain from where our current nasty weather system originated. George W. Bush and his father receive some blame for the current conditions, and even Bill Clinton gets a taste of the underside of Team Obama’s storm-chasing bus:

President Obama says he will need more than one term to revive an economy that began developing problems years ago.

“Reversing structural problems in our economy that have been building up for two decades, that was going to take time,” Obama says in a 60 Minutes interview to air Sunday night.

No more “if I don’t have this turned around in three years I’m a one-termer“? The Captain changes his mind a lot.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: 2012 Campaign,Barack Obama

Printer Friendly

comments (105)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On December 12th, 2011 at 1:39 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Debt, unemployment, and long-term unemployment have all skyrocketed under the “leadership” of Democrats, who “inherited” a good economy in January 2007.

Democrats have held majority control (2+ out of 3) of
the Presidency, Senate, and House since January 2007.

Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?
#102

On December 12th, 2011 at 1:40 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Even in the wake of the one-two punch of the Dot Com bust and the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, unemployment peaked at only 6.4% in June 2003, and then fell steadily over the next 3 and a half years down to 4.4%. Why? I think the Bush tax cuts went a long way toward keeping unemployment low and preventing a much worse recession/depression.

What turned that around and sent unemployment skyrocketing?
In January 2007, Democrats took control of Congress.

Democrats took unemployment from 4.4% to a high of 10.1%, and think the fudged-numbers “progress” since then is something to be proud of…

If you want to impress me, Democrats, get unemployment down to where it was when Republicans last controlled the House, Senate and Presidency.
#103

On December 12th, 2011 at 2:32 pm, Hiraghm said:

On December 11th, 2011 at 11:26 am, Blackstone said:

On December 11th, 2011 at 3:20 am, Hiraghm said:

I am equally optimistic that, if we fail to get a real conservative into the White House, there will be a civil war within the next 4 years. And I’m optimistic that, this time, my side will win.

Not if you vote for Obama it won’t. If you feed the illusion that he and his ways are popular, it will create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and draw more to his side (sorry, but it’s the way human nature works – they want to be on the winning side).

You like to think in military terms, so let me ask you this: When as anyone ever won a war by deliberately losing?

Yes. That’s how the communists won the cold war, it’s how the Viet Cong won the Indochinese War, and it’s how the Japanese won WWII.

(and, apparently, according to popular versions of history around here, it’s how we won the plains Indians wars…)
#104

On December 12th, 2011 at 2:35 pm, Hiraghm said:

Oh… and apparently it’s how Mexico is going to win the U.S.-Mexican war.
#105

On December 14th, 2011 at 5:59 pm, Blackstone said:

On December 12th, 2011 at 2:32 pm, Hiraghm said:

That’s how the communists won the cold war, it’s how the Viet Cong won the Indochinese War, and it’s how the Japanese won WWII.

To the extent that any of those sides won, it was because their enemy had no will to fight, NOT because losing shocked anyone on their side into fighting harder (which is your precedentless strategy). We are not fighting against an enemy that has no will to fight, and we’re lacking it on our side. Letting the enemy win won’t put us in a better position to defeat him.